You should definitely challenge this charges notice. I am happy to assist if you would like.

Attempting to charge you for $1200 (8 days of work) to print out 5 weeks of the Commissioner's diary is outrageous and entirely unethical.

If the Commissioner is attending meetings in his capacity as $700k p/a tax payer funded Public Service Commissioner in accordance with the obligations imposed on him by the Public Service Act 1999, he should have no problem disclosing to the Australian public (who pays his salary) who he has met with. That the APSC is attempting to keep his meetings secret is dodgy in the extreme.

This is simply a case of the decision-maker making a charges decision for the purpose of thwarting the objects of the FOI Act - disgraceful behaviour from a senior exec at the APSC - an agency who's meant to lead the way on honesty, transparency and impartiality.

Precedent is strong here because George Brandis, Mitch Fifield and the Prime Minister have all been ordered, either by the Information Commissioner, the AAT or the Federal Court, to hand over their diaries under the FOI Act. See:
http://foi-privacy.blogspot.nl/2017/03/t...
https://www.facebook.com/FiberalPartyOfA...
https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/201...

If transparent behaviour in respect of diary entries is a requirement of those Ministers, it's certainly a requirement for someone of Mr Lloyd's character. Indeed, it's warranted. Remember, this is a man that was offered the $700K p/a job of Public Service Commissioner by Eric Abetz, over the phone, without a merit based selection process, largely on the basis that he was a card carrying member of the Liberal Party and far right wing lobby group, the IPA.

The reason the decision-maker has determined an extortionate preliminary fee assessment is to prevent anyone from seeing the Commissioner's diary entries - most likely because they will be awkward and incriminating. It's a FOI processing ploy that's fashionable among the more dodgy agencies - they simply hope you'll go away.

So you need to challenge the charges notice on the basis that it should be reduced or not imposed (mention of your review rights at 'Attachment A' is a legal error by the decision-maker). Again, I am happy to help.

A ridiculous charges assessment, of an excessive decision making time calculation, that deserves upmost criticism.

Unfortunately it’s also a stunt pulled not only by the current First Law Officer of the Land, George Brandis https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/03/20/583... , but also Mitch Fifield and the current PM Malcolm Turnbull, for no other basis that to unlawfully and unethically subvert the Freedom of Information Act obligations, and it deserves condemnation.

As shown in the Brandis case, which was ridiculously run through the Tribunal and the Courts, the diaries themselves are of very simple information that require very little decision making time to process.

*utmost

*pedantic *unhelpful