Nematollahi and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application for a Departure Authorisation Certificate (DAC) by the Applicant, Mr. Nematollahi, following the issuance of a Departure Prohibition Order (DPO) against him by the Child Support Registrar. The Applicant sought to travel overseas for approximately three months to visit his elderly parents in Iran and to undergo dental treatment in Bali. The Registrar had refused the DAC application, and the Applicant sought a review of this decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the circumstances warranted the issuance of a DAC. Specifically, the court had to consider the two sets of circumstances outlined in section 72L(2) of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth) under which the Registrar must issue a DAC. These circumstances require the Registrar to be satisfied that the applicant will depart and return within an appropriate period, that the DPO will likely need to be revoked within an appropriate period, and that it is not necessary for the applicant to provide security for their return.

The Tribunal found that the first set of circumstances under section 72L(2) was not met. The Applicant had a substantial outstanding child support liability of $13,676.71, comprising arrears and penalties, and had made no satisfactory arrangements to discharge this debt. Given the Applicant's current payment arrangement of $48.30 per fortnight from social security, it would take approximately 11 years to clear the debt. Furthermore, Iran is not a reciprocating jurisdiction, meaning the child support assessment would be unenforceable if the Applicant remained there. The Tribunal concluded that it was necessary for the Applicant to provide appropriate security for his return, which he had not proposed to do.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the Registrar's decision to refuse the DAC. The Applicant's failure to satisfy the criteria for issuing a DAC, particularly regarding the discharge of his child support liability and the lack of proposed security for his return, led to the dismissal of his application.