BWGG and Child Support Registrar (Practice and procedure)

[2025] ARTA 136

BWGG and Child Support Registrar (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 136 (17 February 2025)

Decision and Reasons for Decision

Applicant/s:  BWGG

Respondent:  Child Support Registrar

Tribunal Number:                2024/6444 2024/6445

2024/6446

Tribunal:  Senior Member J Longo (second review)

Place:  Melbourne

Date:  17 February 2025 Date of written reasons:     21 February 2025

Decision:Pursuant to section 97 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the Tribunal dismisses the application.

.....................................................

Senior Member J. Longo

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)–16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

Catchwords

CHILD SUPPORT – jurisdiction – whether a departure determination decision is an eligible social services decision – application dismissed.

Legislation

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)

Child Support (Registration and Collection Act) 1988 (Cth)

Statement of Reasons

BACKGROUND

1. The Applicant lodged applications for a review with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) on 27 August 2024, seeking review of a decision made by the Social Services and Child Support Division of the AAT made on 2 August 2024. In addition to the application seeking review, the Applicant also lodged an order to stay implementation of the decision made on 2 August 2024.

1. The decision made by the AAT on 2 August 2024 was a review of an application for a departure determination from the administrative assessment of child support made to the Child Support Registrar. From 14 October 2024 all applications on-hand with the AAT transferred to the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal).

1. On 17 February 2025 I conducted an interlocutory hearing to discuss with the Applicant and the Respondent the issue of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review this application. The Applicant and Respondent attended via video hearing. The Respondent provided written submissions to the Tribunal and to the Applicant prior to the hearing. The Applicant made oral submissions at the hearing.

1. I made an oral decision on 17 February 2025 dismissing the applications on the basis that the decisions were not reviewable. I indicated that I would prepare a Statement of Reasons in respect of my oral decision.

CONSIDERATION

1. The Applicant stated at the hearing that the financial impact of the decision made on 2 August 2024 has greatly affected him. Consequently, it should be reviewed. He stated that he cannot afford legal representation to assist him in this process and feels frustrated by the system. He asked the Tribunal to exercise some form of discretion to review the decision.

1. The Respondent’s written submissions were that the Tribunal derives its jurisdiction by a combination of sections 12, 131C and 131D of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (the Act). Section 131D of the Act provides as follows:

   Who can apply

(1)A person whose interests are affected by an ART social services decision may apply to the Tribunal for review (the second review) of the decision.

(2)However, an application cannot be made for second review if the ART social services decision was made in accordance with subsection 103(2) (decision agreed by parties).

(3)An ART social services decision is:

(a)for an eligible social services decision that has been affirmed by the Tribunal—the decision as affirmed; or

(b)for an eligible social services decision that has been varied by the Tribunal— the decision as varied; or

(c)for an eligible social services decision that has been set aside and remade by the Tribunal—the decision as remade; or

(d)for an eligible social services decision that has been set aside and remitted to the decision-maker by the Tribunal—the decision as set aside; or

(e)for an eligible social services decision made under section 92 or subsection 95N(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988—the decision as made.

1. Section 131C of the Act sets out the meaning of eligible social services decisions. In respect of decisions under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Collection Act), eligible social services decisions are decisions relating to either the refusal of an extension of time under section 92 of the Collection Act; the review of a care percentage decision; or a decision to make, or not make, a determination under subsection 95N(2) of the Collection Act. In response to my questions, the Applicant acknowledged that the decision was not one of the reviewable decisions set out in section 131C of the Act.

1. I note that there are multiple Tribunal numbers before me but these all refer to the same decision made by the Social Services and Child Support Division of the AAT on 2 August 2024. The Applicant has made one application for second review and sought an order to stay implementation of the decision on 2 August 2024. I am satisfied that there was one application made by the Applicant on 27 August 2024 and this application does not relate to a reviewable social services decision. Rather, the decision was a decision to depart from the administrative assessment of child support under Part 6A of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989.

1. As the decision is not a decision that the Applicant can apply for second review under the Collection Act, the Tribunal is satisfied that the decision is not reviewable.

1. Accordingly, the Tribunal has not considered whether to grant an order to stay implementation of the decision made on 2 August 2024.

Decision

Pursuant to section 97 of the Act, the Tribunal dismisses the application.