Preece and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

Preece and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2022] AATA 5230 (6 December 2022)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division
REVIEW NUMBER:  2022/SC024842
APPLICANT:  Mr Preece
OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar
TRIBUNAL:Senior Member F Hewson
DECISION DATE:  6 December 2022

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – dismissal of application for review – no reviewable decision – application for review dismissed

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.

DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR REVIEW:

The AAT is satisfied that the decision is not reviewable by the AAT and dismisses the application for review pursuant to subsection 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The reasons for this decision follow.
On 1 September 2022, Mr Preece lodged an application for AAT first review with the Social Services and Child Support Division.
An application may be made for AAT first review of a decision listed in section 89 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. On 17 October 2022 Services Australia (the Agency) advised the AAT it could not identify from the information in Mr Preece’s application a reviewable decision about which he was seeking review.
On 28 October 2022 the AAT wrote to Mr Preece about the proposed dismissal of his application and invited him to provide evidence of a reviewable decision having been made. Mr Preece subsequently submitted further documents.
I considered Mr Preece’s application and the further documents submitted by him along with a letter to the AAT headed “APPLICATION FOR REVIEW of the Child Support inaction regarding my money under robbery and extortion by the Child Support after the Commonwealth’s jurisdiction expired. NO RESPONSE TO My APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE CSRC ACT 1988.”
The most recent documents submitted by Mr Preece include a translated copy of a judgment of the District Court of [Town] in [Country], dated 23 November 2022, which states that the enforceability of an order issued on 28 September 2006 has been revoked. This judgment was made after the date of Mr Preece’s application to the AAT and any decision made by the Registrar in response to it would not be a reviewable decision for the purpose of the current application.
In his current application Mr Preece raises issues addressed by me in detail in a decision in relation to an earlier application lodged by him (2022/SC023323). In response to information received from the District Court of [Town] in June 2016 the Registrar amended the Child Support Register with the effect of removing the liability for spousal maintenance which had previously been recorded. It is clear that Mr Preece is not satisfied that the Child Support Register has been amended correctly and it appears to be in relation to this he states he has had response to an application made under section 37 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, which sets out the circumstances in which the Registrar may vary the Child Support Register to give effect to court orders.
If Mr Preece has made an application to the Registrar, which the Registrar is required to determine, but has unreasonably delayed doing so, then that is a matter Mr Preece may pursue with the Commonwealth Ombudsman, including, if the delay relates to internal review of a decision to which the provision applies, seeking a certificate under section 10 of the Ombudsman Act 1976, in relation to an unreasonable delay in exercising power. In relation to the current application before the AAT, however, I concluded that Mr Preece has not identified a decision that is reviewable by the AAT.
As such a decision has not been made the AAT does not have a reviewable decision it can review and therefore dismisses the application for review.

The applicant, Preece, sought a review of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar. However, the Senior Member of the Tribunal determined that there was no reviewable decision before it, leading to the dismissal of Preece's application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Registrar's action, or lack thereof, constituted a "decision" that could be subject to review under the relevant legislation. Specifically, the Tribunal had to ascertain if the Registrar had made a determination or taken an action that fell within the definition of a reviewable decision.

Senior Member Hewson reasoned that the Child Support (Registration and Collections) Act 1984 (Cth) and the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) define what constitutes a reviewable decision. In this instance, the Registrar had not made a formal decision that met these criteria. Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for review. The application was therefore dismissed on the basis that no reviewable decision had been made by the Registrar.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established