Freedom of Information (Access Charges) Regulations 2025

Fee units. All dollar‑denominated charges in the Regulations are expressed as multiples of “fee units” as defined in the Monetary Units Act 2004. The value of a fee unit is fixed by the Treasurer before 1 June each year for the following financial year, and is published in the Government Gazette and a Victorian newspaper. For 2025‑26 the value is $16.81; for 2024‑25 it was $16.33. The actual dollar charge for any item must be calculated by multiplying the number of fee units by the current fee unit value, and may be rounded to the nearest 10 cents. This mechanism means the real monetary burden on applicants increases annually with statutory indexation, without requiring amendment of the Regulations.

Reasonable costs. Items 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and part of item 8 of Schedule 1 refer to “the reasonable costs incurred by the agency” for providing a particular service. The Regulations do not define “reasonable costs” - that term is left to administrative judgment and, ultimately, to review by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) under the Act. In practice, agencies would interpret this to include direct labour costs, materials, overheads directly attributable to satisfying the request, and any external contractor fees. The absence of a bright‑line definition creates uncertainty for applicants and may encourage agencies to adopt generous internal costing formulas.

Alternative form rule. Regulation 7 introduces a cost‑minimisation obligation on agencies. If access could reasonably be given in more than one form (e.g., as a paper photocopy, a PDF on USB, or an email attachment), and the applicant has not requested a particular form, the agency must give access in the form that yields the lowest reasonable cost to the applicant. This prevents agencies from unilaterally choosing a more expensive delivery method and charging the applicant for it. However, the rule only applies if three conditions are met: the request could be met in more than one form; the applicant has not specified a form; and the charge for the form actually given exceeds the charge for the lowest‑cost form. If the applicant does specify a form, the agency may charge according to that form, even if cheaper alternatives exist.

Charge notice threshold - $70. Section 22(3) of the Act requires an agency to give the applicant a written notice of the charge if the charge exceeds “the prescribed greater amount”. Regulation 8 sets that amount at $70. A notice under section 22(3) must include the charge, how it was calculated, and the applicant’s rights of review. Below $70, no notice is required (though the agency may still choose to provide one). This threshold affects cash flow: an applicant may receive a surprise invoice after the work is done if the charge ends up under $70.

Deposit and payment triggers. Regulation 9 ties the deposit to the estimated charge. If the charge is $100 or less, the agency can demand a $25 deposit. If the charge exceeds $100, the deposit jumps to 50% of the charge. The deposit is a precondition to the agency proceeding further with the request. Section 22(4) of the Act permits the agency to require the deposit; the Regulations merely quantify the amount. If the actual charge ends up lower than the estimate, the agency must refund the excess. No interest is payable on deposits held by agencies.

Health information categories. Items 8, 9 and 10 of Schedule 1 are specific to requests for documents containing “health information” - a term that is not defined in these Regulations but presumably takes its meaning from the Act or the Health Records Act 2001. The charge for an agency’s own health service provider to explain the health information is capped at the cheaper of 1.9 fee units per quarter hour and 6 fee units total, meaning the maximum for that service is 6 fee units. An external health service provider (such as the applicant’s own doctor) can charge his or her usual consultation fee, with no statutory cap. This asymmetry means an applicant who wants an independent explanation may face a significantly higher charge than one who accepts the agency’s in‑house explanation - but the agency may not have a suitably qualified provider on staff.

Suitably qualified health service provider. This concept appears in items 8 and 9 but is not defined in the Regulations. The phrase would almost certainly be interpreted by reference to the category of registered health practitioners under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) or similar regulatory schemes. The absence of a definition creates scope for disagreement about who qualifies and whether the agency’s nominated person meets the standard.

The Regulations directly affect any person or organisation that makes a valid FOI request to a Victorian agency. This includes individuals seeking their own personal information, journalists and media organisations investigating government activity, businesses requesting tender or compliance documents, lawyers gathering evidence for litigation or advisory work, and public interest groups researching policy. The charging structure creates a price signal that may deter applicants with limited budgets, especially those making multiple or broad requests. The deposit requirement (regulation 9) introduces a cash‑flow barrier: a request with an estimated charge of $200 requires a $100 deposit before any work proceeds"> this may be prohibitive for impecunious applicants even if the final charge is later reduced or waived.

Victorian “agencies” for the purposes of the Act include government departments, statutory authorities, local councils, public hospitals, universities, TAFE institutes, and other bodies defined in the Act or listed in the Freedom of Information (Agency) Regulations. Regulation 5 of these Regulations provides that “agency includes a Minister”, so ministerial offices are also covered. The Regulations impose obligations on agency officers who process requests: they must calculate charges, issue notices, request deposits, and apply the alternative‑form rule. The number of officers affected will depend on each agency’s workload; larger agencies with dedicated FOI units will see more day‑to‑day impact.

Health service providers who are asked to explain health information under items 8 or 9 are affected as potential chargees. Agency‑employed health professionals (item 8) must provide explanations at a capped rate; external practitioners (item 9) can charge their usual fee. The Regulations do not compel an external provider to accept a lower rate if they are not the agency - thus, if an applicant requests an explanation from their own GP, the GP’s standard consultation fee applies without statutory limit.

The Regulations also affect private sector contractors who provide copying, transcription, or IT services to agencies, because “reasonable costs” may include amounts paid to third‑party suppliers. However, the applicant bears the ultimate cost, not the contractor.

Finally, the Victorian taxpayer is indirectly affected: to the extent that charge revenue fails to recover the full cost of processing requests, the shortfall is borne by agency budgets and ultimately by consolidated revenue. Conversely, if charges are set too high, access to information is reduced, which may undermine accountability and informed public debate.

Applicant’s duty to pay. Regulation 6 imposes a clear liability: an applicant who has made a request under section 17 is liable to pay the charge calculated in accordance with Schedule 1. This is not a discretionary fee; it is a debt owed to the agency. If the applicant refuses or fails to pay, the agency may withhold access until payment is made (section 22(7) of the Act). The applicant has no right under these Regulations to have the charge reduced or waived - any such right would arise only under the Act itself (section 22(5) permits reduction or waiver, but the criteria are not addressed in these Regulations). The duty to pay arises only once access is actually provided or offered; if the applicant withdraws the request before access is given, the charge may still be payable for work already done, depending on the agency’s practice and the terms of any deposit arrangement.

Agency’s duty to notify. If the charge exceeds $70, the agency must give the applicant a written notice under section 22(3) of the Act. Regulation 8 prescribes $70 as the threshold. The notice must include the amount of the charge, how it was calculated, and a statement of the applicant’s review rights (under section 22(9) or Part VI of the Act). Failure to give notice when required does not extinguish the charge but may provide grounds for review. If the charge is $70 or less, no notice is required; the agency may simply provide the access and invoice.

Agency’s right to require deposit. Under regulation 9, read with section 22(4) of the Act, the agency may (but is not obliged to) require a deposit before proceeding further. The deposit amount is fixed: if the charge is $100 or less, $25; if it exceeds $100, 50% of the charge. This right is permissive, not mandatory. An agency may decide that the compliance cost of collecting and refunding deposits outweighs the benefit, especially for small charges. The deposit is held by the agency and applied against the final charge; any surplus must be refunded. If the applicant fails to pay the deposit, the request may be deemed withdrawn or the agency may simply not process it further.

Applicant’s right to lowest‑cost access form. Regulation 7 gives the applicant a right to be charged the lowest reasonable cost if the agency chooses which form of access to provide and the applicant has not specified a preference. This is a protective right: it prevents the agency from selecting a premium delivery method (such as a bound paper copy) when a cheaper method (such as email) would suffice. However, it does not give the applicant the right to demand the cheapest form if they have already asked for a specific (more expensive) form. The right is conditional on three factors: multiple forms exist; the applicant has not specified one; and the agency’s chosen form is more expensive than the cheapest reasonable form.

Applicant’s right to know the calculation basis? While not explicitly stated in the Regulations, the Act’s notice provision (section 22(3)) read with regulation 8 gives the applicant the right to a breakdown if the charge is over $70. For charges under $70, there is no statutory right to an itemised calculation, though an applicant may request one informally Unemployment - the agency is not obliged to provide it under these Regulations.

Health information explanation caps. An applicant who receives an explanation of health information from an agency’s in‑house health service provider has the right to pay no more than the cap: the lesser of 1.9 fee units per quarter hour and 6 fee units total. For an external provider, the cap does not apply. The applicant’s right is to choose which form of explanation they want and to be charged accordingly, but there is no right to force the agency to provide an in‑house explanation if it lacks a suitably qualified person.

These Regulations do not themselves create any criminal offences, infringement notices, or civil penalty provisions. They are purely charging rules made under the Act. Enforcement of non‑payment is a matter of administrative and civil law, not criminal sanctions. If an applicant refuses to pay a properly calculated charge, the agency may:

• refuse to give access until the charge is paid (section 22(7) of the Act);
• treat the request as withdrawn if a required deposit is not paid within a reasonable time (section 22(4A) of the Act);
• seek to recover the charge as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction - though this is extremely rare for small FOI charges.

The Regulations indirectly enforce themselves because access is held hostage to payment. This creates a coercive effect: a request that would otherwise be processed stops unless the applicant pays. There is no right to receive access without paying the charge, subject only to any right to have the charge reduced or waived under the Act itself (a power not expanded or limited by these Regulations).

For agencies, the Regulations do not impose penalties for overcharging or failing to follow the schedule. However, an applicant may apply to VCAT for review of the charge under section 22(9) or Part VI of the Act. If VCAT finds the charge was incorrectly calculated, it may substitute a lower amount, order a refund of any overpayment, and potentially award costs against the agency in egregious cases. VCAT also has power to consider the conduct of the agency in processing the request, but penalties under the Act for delay or other failures are separate from these Regulations.

There is no provision in the Regulations for interest on late‑paid charges or on deposits held by agencies. Applicants who pay a deposit and then receive a final charge lower than the deposit are entitled to a refund, but no interest is payable for the period the money was held. Conversely, agencies have no statutory interest right if an applicant delays paying the final invoice.

The Regulations rely on the existing enforcement machinery of the Act: the Ombudsman may investigate complaints about agency conduct; the Information Commissioner (where that office exists under Victorian law) may handle complaints; and VCAT provides merits review. None of those bodies is given additional enforcement powers by these Regulations.

Practically, the most common enforcement issue is likely to be disputes over “reasonable costs” for items 4-7 and 10. An agency may estimate high, the applicant may object, and the matter may go to VCAT. The costs of such a review may far exceed the disputed amount, creating a disincentive for applicants to challenge even overcharges. This is a structural feature of the regime, not a penalty, but it effectively punishes applicants with deep pockets while those with limited resources may simply pay or abandon the request.

Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic). The Regulations are the subordinate legislative instrument that gives effect to sections 22(1A) and 66 of the Act. They must be read together with the Act. In particular:

• Section 17(2A) of the Act prescribes an application fee (currently $30.10 as of 2025, separately regulated). The Regulations note that the access charge is in addition to that fee.
• Section 22 of the Act provides the framework for charges, including when a notice is required (the Regulations fill the threshold) and when a deposit may be required (the Regulations fill the amount).
• Section 19 of the Act deals with the production of documents not held in discrete form; item 7 of Schedule 1 implements the charging aspect of that section.
• The Act’s review provisions (sections 49A‑53) give the applicant the right to challenge any charge determination at VCAT. The Regulations do not alter those rights.
• The Act’s waiver and reduction provisions (section 22(5)) continue to apply; the Regulations do not modify them.

Monetary Units Act 2004. This is the parent legislation for the fee‑unit system. The Regulations rely entirely on it to give monetary meaning to “fee unit”. The Treasurer’s annual determination of the fee unit value under section 5 of that Act is binding on the calculation of charges under Schedule 1. The rounding convention (to the nearest 10 cents) is authorised by section 7 of the Monetary Units Act. Changes to the fee unit value do not require amendment of these Regulations; they flow through automatically each 1 July.

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. Section 5 of that Act imposes a ten-year sunset on all statutory rules made after 1 July 1995, unless exempted. The endnotes confirm that these Regulations will sunset on 27 May 2035. This sunset provision means the Regulations have a built‑in expiry, forcing a review of their operation within a decade. If no replacement is made, the charging framework would lapse, and agencies would have no authorised charge schedule, effectively making FOI services free (unless the Act itself provides a fallback - which it does not for the specific charge items).

Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984. This Act governs how provisions in statutory rules are to be read. The endnotes explain that headings, examples, diagrams, notes, punctuation, and provision numbers form part of the Regulations for interpretation purposes. This matters, for instance, because the notes to items 7 and 8 are part of the Regulations and can be used to resolve ambiguity.

Health Records Act 2001 (Vic) and Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria). These laws likely inform the meaning of “health information” and “suitably qualified health service provider”, though neither is cross‑referenced in the Regulations. An agency interpreting item 8 or 9 will need to look to external definitions to determine who qualifies as a suitable health service provider. The Health Records Act defines “health information” broadly and would be the natural reference for an agency or VCAT asked to construe that phrase.

Local Government Act 2020 and other sector‑specific FOI provisions. The Regulations apply uniformly to all Victorian agencies; they do not create sector‑specific charging rules. However, some agencies may have their own internal charging policies that are consistent with these Regulations but additional - for example, a council may have a policy not to charge for search time for personal requests. Those policies are not compelled or precluded by these Regulations, but they cannot override the maximum amounts permitted.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). Not directly relevant, but if an agency were to engage in misleading conduct regarding the calculation or imposition of charges (e.g., overstating reasonable costs), it could potentially attract ACL liability, though this is remote in practice because FOI charges are administrative, not commercial.

The Freedom of Information (Access Charges) Regulations 2025, S.R. No. 32/2025, were made on 27 May 2025 by the Lieutenant‑Governor as the Governor’s deputy, with the advice of the Executive Council, and came into operation on 1 June 2025 (regulation 3). They are Version No. 001 - the initial version. The Table of Amendments is expressly empty: “There are no amendments made to the Freedom of Information (Access Charges) Regulations 2025 by statutory rules, subordinate instruments and Acts.” This is unsurprising given the very recent commencement date.

The Regulations revoke the Freedom of Information (Access Charges) Regulations 2014, S.R. No. 49/2014, which had been extended in operation by S.R. No. 37/2024. The 2014 Regulations had been in force for over a decade (with periodic extensions to avoid sunset). The 2025 Regulations represent a fresh instrument rather than an amendment, though the Schedule 1 items are largely identical in structure to the 2014 version. The key differences appear to be: updated fee unit values (now indexed annually by the Monetary Units Act); the deposit thresholds ($25 and 50%) remain the same as under the 2014 Regulations? The source does not reproduce the 2014 schedule for comparison, but the substantive rates seem unchanged (1.5 fee units per hour, 20 cents per page, etc.). The prescription of $70 as the greater amount for charge notices was $50 under the 2014 Regulations? Again, not stated, but the $70 figure is new - the earlier regulations (as extended to 2024) used a lower threshold. The endnotes confirm that the 2014 Regulations were as extended by S.R. No. 37/2024.

The Regulations will sunset on 27 May 2035 under section 5 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994, ten years after the day of making. This is a standard sunset for Victorian statutory rules. Any future amendments to the Regulations will be recorded in the Table of Amendments once made. As of Version No. 001, no such amendments exist.

The fee unit values quoted in the endnotes are illustrative: $16.33 for FY2024-25 and $16.81 for FY2025-26. These values are not part of the Regulations themselves; they are external references. Practitioners should always check the current fee unit value with the Victorian Government Gazette or the Monetary Units Act page on the legislation website. The Regulations themselves have not been amended to reflect these annual changes - they simply refer to “fee units” by name, leaving the dollar calculation to the applicant or agency.

The source text for these Regulations - the statutory instrument itself, its endnotes, and the explanatory details - does not mention any litigation history. No cases are cited, no VCAT decisions are referenced, and no judicial consideration of the 2025 Regulations is reported. This is consistent with the Regulations having been made on 27 May 2025 and coming into force only on 1 June 2025. As of the version date (1 June 2025), there simply has not been time for any litigation to arise, be decided, and be recorded in the official text.

Practitioners should be aware, however, that litigation under the predecessor 2014 Regulations may be relevant by analogy. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has a body of decisions interpreting similar charging provisions - for example, disputes over what constitutes “reasonable costs” for copying, whether search time includes time spent consulting legal advisers to determine exemptions, and whether deposit demands were excessive. While those cases are not binding on the interpretation of the 2025 Regulations (which have identical or near‑identical language), they are likely to be persuasive authority. The 2025 Regulations donot change the definition of “reasonable costs” nor the structure of the schedule, so the reasoning in earlier VCAT decisions would still have force.

Notable potential sources of future litigation include the alternative‑form rule (regulation 7). An applicant may argue that an agency failed to provide access in the lowest‑cost form when it unilaterally chose a format with a higher charge. The VCAT could be asked to determine what “reasonably” means in the context of available forms - e.g., is a 2,000‑page document sent by email “reasonably capable” of being given in that form, or does the agency’s email attachment limit restrict that? Similarly, the deposit threshold may be challenged if an agency demands a deposit based on an inflated estimate of the charge.

The health information caps (items 8 and 10) could also generate litigation. The cap is expressed as “the lesser of 1.9 fee units per quarter hour (or part of a quarter hour) or 6 fee units”. If an agency takes 10 quarter‑hours to produce an explanation, the total under the cap would be 6 fee units (the absolute cap) - but the agency might still claim “reasonable costs” of, say, 20 fee units. The applicant could dispute whether the cap applies or whether the work fell under a different schedule item.

No High Court or Court of Appeal decisions are referenced, and none should be assumed. The source is silent.

Uncapped search and supervision charges. Items 1 and 2 of Schedule 1 contain no upper limit. An agency can charge 1.5 fee units per hour for search (item 1) and 1.5 fee units per quarter hour for supervision (item 2) for as many hours or quarter‑hours as it claims are reasonably required. For a request covering thousands of files, search time could run into hundreds of hours, generating a charge that dwarfs the value of the information sought. There is no provision in these Regulations for a maximum aggregate charge. An applicant should obtain a detailed estimate before proceeding, but if the charge ends up under $70, no formal notice is required, so the first indication of cost may be the final invoice.

Deposit threshold trap. Regulation 9 sets a deposit of 50% of the charge if the charge exceeds $100. The phrase “exceeds $100” means a charge of $100.01 triggers a 50% deposit, while $100.00 triggers only a $25 deposit. The flat $25 deposit on charges up to $100 is a bargain; a charge of $100 gives a deposit of $25 (25%), while a charge of $101 gives a deposit of $50.50 (50%). This cliff-like jump creates a perverse incentive for agencies to keep estimates at or below $100 to avoid administrative complexity, but if the estimate is just over $100, the applicant faces a much higher upfront payment. Applicants should note that the deposit is not a cap on the final charge - if the agency’s estimate turns out too low, the final charge could exceed the deposit.

No waiver or reduction provisions. The Regulations are silent on any power to reduce or waive a charge. That power is found in section 22(5) of the Act, which is not reproduced here. An applicant who qualifies for waiver under the Act (e.g., due to financial hardship or public interest) must rely on that separate provision. The Regulations do not mention it, so an agency officer applying the Regulations might not be prompted to consider waiver. Applicants should explicitly ask for waiver if they believe they qualify, because the Regulations do not require the agency to volunteer the option.

“Reasonable costs” is a blank cheque. Items 4-7 and part of item 8 allow the agency to charge “the reasonable costs incurred by the agency”. This phrase is not defined. Agencies could include notional overheads, software licensing allocations, or management costs. The leading VCAT decisions under the 2014 Regulations (which had identical wording) generally disallow overheads that are not directly attributable, but the burden of challenging an agency’s calculation falls on the applicant. The absence of a rate schedule for these items creates uncertainty and potential for excessive charges that are expensive to contest.

Health information cap is per item, not per request. The caps in items 8 and 10 apply to the “charge in relation to providing the explanation” or the summary, respectively. If the request includes both an explanation and a summary, both charges apply independently. Moreover, the 6‑fee‑unit absolute cap in item 8 is only for the explanation by the agency’s own health service provider. If the agency decides it cannot provide a suitably qualified person and refers to an external provider, the cap does not apply (item 9). An applicant cannot compel the agency to provide an in‑house explanation to benefit from the cap. This asymmetry may encourage agencies to outsource health explanations when the request is large, passing the uncapped cost to the applicant.

Inadvertent triggering of alternative‑form rule. If the applicant does not specify a preferred form of access, the agency must give the form with the lowest reasonable cost. But if the applicant does specify a form (even casually, in the original request), the agency can charge according to that form. An applicant who writes “please email the documents” may be charged reasonable costs for an electronic copy (item 4) rather than the lower $0.20 per page photocopy charge. Conversely, an applicant who writes “please provide copies” without specifying medium may get the cheapest form. The safest approach for an applicant is to state a preference for the cheapest form - usually electronic delivery unless the document is small. For agencies, staff must be careful to check whether the applicant has expressed a preference; otherwise they may inadvertently overcharge.

Fee units change each financial year. The fees quoted in Schedule 1 are in fee units, not dollars. An applicant reviewing the Regulations in May 2025 sees values as at 1 July 2024. But the charge for a request made after 1 July 2025 will be calculated using the higher 2025‑26 figure. There is no transitional provision in the Regulations for requests straddling a financial year. The agency likely uses the fee unit value in force at the time the charge is assessed (usually when the decision on access is made). This can lead to small but unexpected increases. Applicants should ask for the dollar amount at the estimate stage to lock in the current value.

For applicants (requesters). Determine your budget before submitting a request. The application fee under section 17(2A) of the Act is fixed separately; the access charge under these Regulations is additional. For a personal information request, the search and supervision charges may be low if the agency already has the records collated. For a complex or broad request, ask the agency for an estimate of charges before it proceeds. If the estimated charge exceeds $70, the agency must give you a written notice under section 22(3); if it is below $70, you may not receive a breakdown, so request one informally. If the request involves health information, state whether you prefer an in‑agency explanation (capped) or an external provider (uncapped). Always specify your preferred form of access - if you want the cheapest, write “please provide access by email in PDF format” (if the document is amenable) or “please provide an opportunity to inspect and take notes” to avoid copying costs. If you face a deposit demand, check it matches regulation 9: $25 for charges up to $100, 50% for charges above $100. Pay the deposit promptly to keep the request alive<｜begin▁of▁file｜>> if you cannot pay, ask for a waiver or reduction under section 22(5) of the Act, referencing your grounds (e.g., financial hardship, public interest). Keep a record of all communications and the agency’s calculations. If you believe the charge is excessive, apply to VCAT for review within the time limits under the Act (usually 28 days after receiving the charge notice). Be aware that the review process itself may cost time and money, and the Regulations do not provide for your costs to be reimbursed if you win.

For agencies. Appoint a person or unit responsible for FOI charges. When a request arrives, determine which items of Schedule 1 apply. For search time (item 1), keep a contemporaneous log of hours spent locating documents. For supervision (item 2), record quarter‑hour blocks. For copying (items 3 and 4), decide whether to use the fixed per‑page rate (20 cents) or charge reasonable costs for other formats - but be prepared to justify the latter if challenged. For transcription, production of documents not in discrete form, and health information services, calculate your direct costs and document the basis. If you use third‑party suppliers, obtain their invoices or estimates.

Charge notice: If the total charge exceeds $70, provide a written notice under section 22(3) of the Act that includes an itemised breakdown, the method of calculation (e.g., “search time: 8 hours x 1.5 fee units x $16.81 = $201.72”), and advise the applicant of their review rights. If the charge is $70 or less, you are not required to give notice but may still choose to do so for transparency.

Deposit: Decide whether to require a deposit. If you do, calculate it strictly per regulation 9. If the charge is $100 or less, deposit is $25. If it exceeds $100, deposit is 50% of the charge. Issue a deposit request and specify a reasonable payment period. Do not begin processing further until the deposit is received (unless you choose to waive the deposit). If the final charge is less than the deposit, refund the difference promptly; if more, invoice for the balance.

Alternative form (regulation 7). Before providing access, check whether the applicant has specified a particular form of access. If not, and if multiple forms are reasonably available, choose the form that imposes the lowest reasonable cost on the applicant. Document the alternative forms considered and your reasoning. For example, if the document is a 50-page PDF, providing an electronic copy (item 4) may cost $10 (reasonable costs of emailing) whereas printing and posting (item 3) would cost $10 plus postage. The electronic form is cheaper, so charge that. Do not default to a form that generates higher revenue without justification.

Health information. If the request relates to health information, ask the applicant whether they want an explanation. If your agency employs a suitably qualified health service provider, calculate the charge at 1.9 fee units per quarter hour, capped at 6 fee units total. If you need to engage an external provider, agree on their usual fee in advance and inform the applicant of the likely charge. For summaries, use the same cap (1.9 fee units per quarter hour, max 6 fee units). Do not charge for a summary if one already exists.

Record keeping and audit trail. Retain records of time sheets, cost calculations, correspondence with the applicant, and deposit receipts. These may be needed if the applicant seeks review or if the Victorian Auditor‑General audits compliance. Update your internal policies each financial year to reflect the new fee‑unit value published by the Treasurer.

Training. Ensure FOI officers understand the difference between the application fee (s17(2A)) and access charges (these Regulations). Train them to identify when the alternative‑form rule applies and how to calculate deposits. Provide a checklist or calculator tool that multiplies fee units by the current dollar value and applies rounding to the nearest 10 cents.