Preece and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

[2022] AATA 3098

Preece and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2022] AATA 3098 (21 June 2022)

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

DIVISION:  Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2022/SC023323

APPLICANT:  Mr Preece

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

TRIBUNAL:  Senior Member F Hewson

DECISION DATE:  21 June 2022

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – review of finalised decision – no jurisdiction – application                 dismissed

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted 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:

1.The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (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 AAT Act). The reasons for this decision follow.

2.On 6 January 2022, Mr Preece wrote to the AAT. He indicated he was seeking to lodge an application in relation to a matter (2014/SC005301) finalised by the AAT in August 2014. In asserting his right to lodge an application in relation to a finalised matter Mr Preece referred to the AAT Annual Report for 2019/21 which, at page 150, contains a table detailing the number of applications lodged and applications finalised by the AAT, including one “application under the AAT Act relating to a finalised case”.

3.Mr Preece’s letter of 6 January 2022 was treated as an application for review and I conducted a directions hearing to consider whether the AAT has jurisdiction to consider the issues raised by Mr Preece, who participated by conference telephone.

4.Mr Preece said he was not seeking to have the 2014 application, which he said had been “confirmed” by the Federal Circuit Court, reopened. He said he was seeking redress in relation to the “fraud” operating between [Country] and Australia. He said the tribunal, in making its 2014 decision, did not check the status of [Country] orders it had regard to, which he said were fraudulent.

5.Mr Preece said he provided the Child Support Agency (CSA) with new evidence in 2020 which he said showed the orders used by the CSA and tribunal in making its decisions were fraudulent. Mr Preece agreed the CSA had amended its records subsequent to receiving the new information. Mr Preece disagreed that the amendments effectively nullified the decision of the AAT in 2014. He said $10,000 was intercepted and transferred to [Country]. He agreed that some of those monies may have been for ordinary child support but he was not satisfied as to the amount, as the CSA had never given him evidence showing which amounts were child support and which were spousal maintenance.

6.Mr Preece said his divorce in the Australian courts was dated [February] 2002. His liability for spousal maintenance, he said, could not be extended beyond five years; in this case to 2007. He said, however, his ex-wife would be required to apply for spousal maintenance in an Australian court. He does not accept, therefore, that he has any liability for spousal maintenance.

7.I advised Mr Preece that the tribunal has limited jurisdiction and it is not open to it to reopen its decisions, which in this case has subsequently been considered by a court. Mr Preece asserted that this is not the case and if it was, I would not be speaking to him. I explained that I had arranged the directions hearing so I could better understand what he was seeking and to consider whether the application should be dismissed.

8.On 10 January 2014 the Child Support Registrar decided to register an order, said to have been made in a [Country] court on 28 September 2006, for Mr Preece to pay spousal maintenance. The spousal maintenance order was registered from 7 November 2013.

9.The issue before the AAT in 2014 was whether the order for spousal maintenance, which Mr Preece asserted was fraudulent, should have been registered by the Child Support Registrar. The tribunal, differently constituted, decided that the order of 28 September 2006 was a registrable maintenance liability which was properly registered on 10 January 2014. The decision under review was affirmed and Mr Preece subsequently lodged an application with the Federal Circuit Court.

10.As I understood Mr Preece he is not seeking a further review of the decision made by the AAT in August 2014, as such, but is seeking some redress for what he alleges is a fraud perpetrated by the AAT, which he states has deprived him of the ability to return to [Country], due to debts incurred and the risk of imprisonment.

11.I concluded the AAT does not have the jurisdiction to review the decision made by the AAT in August 2014, which was in relation to whether the spousal maintenance order was correctly registered from 7 November 2013. Although the reasons for the decision included references to the amount payable under the order ($73.20 per month) and noted in the final paragraph that an amount of arrears appeared not to have been registered, the AAT decision had legal effect only in relation to the registration of the spousal maintenance order.

12.The documents provided by Mr Preece and the Child Support Registrar indicate that following receipt of further evidence from the [Country] Central Authority in 2016 a further decision was made, on 6 September 2016, to end the spousal maintenance order from 17 May 2011 (as a result an amount of $4,548.46 was repaid to Mr Preece). This decision, in effect, nullified the 27 August 2014 decision of the AAT that the spousal maintenance order was correctly registered from 7 November 2013. Any decisions in relation to whether arrears were owed for periods before 7 November 2013 or about the date from which the spousal maintenance order should end were not matters before the AAT in August 2014.

13.In summary, I concluded the AAT has no jurisdiction to review the decision of the AAT of 27 August 2014 and, even if it did have such power to reconsider the matter, there is no prospect that Mr Preece would get a more favourable outcome because the subsequent decision to end the spousal maintenance order from 17 May 2011 means the decision of 27 August 2014 has no practical effect. I was satisfied the AAT does not have jurisdiction in this matter and I decided to dismiss the application under subsection 42A(4) of the AAT Act.