Hailu and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Hailu to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) regarding a Departure Prohibition Order (DPO) issued to him under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1984 (Collection Act). Mr Hailu, a self-employed taxi driver, had a child support liability for his three children, which was due to end in 2024. The DPO was issued due to persistent failure to meet his child support obligations, significant arrears, and a history of payments only being received through enforcement mechanisms, such as Centrelink deductions. Mr Hailu had also travelled overseas multiple times and transferred substantial sums of money abroad.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Hailu's DPO should be revoked. This required the Tribunal to consider the grounds for revocation under section 72I of the Collection Act, which include the person no longer having a child support liability, having made satisfactory arrangements to discharge the liability, or the liability being irrecoverable. The Tribunal also had to consider whether to exercise its discretion under section 72I(3) to revoke the DPO if it considered it desirable to do so.

The Tribunal reasoned that Mr Hailu did not meet the statutory grounds for revocation. Firstly, he had a significant outstanding child support debt, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review the assessment of this liability, which Mr Hailu disputed. Secondly, the Tribunal found that Mr Hailu had not made satisfactory arrangements to discharge his substantial arrears, noting that his proposed monthly payments would take many years to clear the debt and that his payment history indicated a persistent failure to meet his obligations. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that it was not desirable to exercise its discretion to revoke the DPO.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the DPO remained in force.