Peters and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Peters to the Tribunal for a review of the Child Support Registrar's decision not to revoke a departure prohibition order (DPO) made against him. The DPO was issued under section 72D of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1998* (the Act) due to significant child support arrears and penalties, totalling $98,108.55 as at March 2019. Mr Peters sought the revocation of this order, which prohibits him from departing Australia.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the circumstances mandated the revocation of the DPO under section 72I(1) of the Act, or whether it was desirable to revoke or vary the order under section 72I(3). Specifically, the Tribunal considered whether Mr Peters no longer had a child support liability, or whether satisfactory arrangements had been made for his existing liability to be wholly discharged. The Tribunal noted that it did not have the power to review the initial decision to make the DPO, as such appeals lie with the Federal Court or Federal Circuit Court.

The Tribunal found that Mr Peters did have an outstanding child support liability, evidenced by a certificate issued by the Registrar, and that his arguments regarding a reduced weekly payment obligation were not supported by the court orders. Consequently, the conditions for mandatory revocation under section 72I(1)(a) and (b) were not met. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was desirable to revoke or vary the DPO under its discretionary power.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the Registrar's decision not to revoke the departure prohibition order.