Leggett and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant to revoke a departure prohibition order (DPO) issued by the Child Support Registrar. The Applicant sought to depart Australia to visit his mother-in-law, but the DPO prevented him from doing so. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the DPO should be revoked.

The Tribunal considered whether the Applicant no longer had a child support liability, whether satisfactory arrangements had been made for the debt to be wholly discharged, and whether the child support liability was completely irrecoverable. The Tribunal also considered its discretionary power to revoke the DPO, taking into account the objects of the legislation, which include ensuring children receive financial support from their parents and that periodic maintenance payments are made regularly and on time.

The Tribunal found that a certificate issued under s 116(2) of the Registration and Collection Act provided prima facie evidence of a child support debt of $25,201.54 plus penalties of $3,445.16 as at 24 May 2018. The Applicant had made no child support payments since 11 November 2015 and had not entered into any current payment arrangements. Despite the Applicant's claims of financial hardship due to business downturns and upcoming surgery, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had previously stated his priority was to sustain his business and had not made regular payments even during successful periods. Furthermore, the Applicant had the capacity to address his debt, as indicated by a previous finding of approximately $23,400 in annual income. The Tribunal also observed that the existence of a DPO can act as an incentive to discharge the debt and that there was an alternative avenue for the Applicant to seek a departure authorisation certificate for specific travel.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the Applicant had a significant child support debt, had made no satisfactory arrangements for its discharge, and that his financial situation did not prevent him from doing so. Consequently, the DPO was not revoked.