VXQB and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned an application for a stay order made by the Father to the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT2) concerning a decision of the Social Services & Child Support Division of the AAT (AAT1). The AAT1 had set aside an earlier decision by an Objections Officer, which had found a change in the care percentages of a child and a consequent terminating event. The effect of the AAT1 decision was to create a child support debt for the Father for the period between 18 July 2017 and 11 January 2019. The Father sought a stay of the AAT1 decision pending his substantive application for review of that decision in the AAT2.

The legal issues before the AAT2 included whether it had jurisdiction to hear and determine both the application for a stay order and the substantive application for review of a care percentage decision. Additionally, the AAT2 was required to consider whether the substantive application should be adjourned pending a decision from the Federal Court of Australia on a similar jurisdictional issue, and whether the Father's application for review was vexatious or failed to clearly identify the respects in which the decision was believed to be incorrect.

The Tribunal, constituted by M Evans SM, reasoned that it had jurisdiction to determine both the stay order application and the substantive application for review. This jurisdiction was supported by sections 96A and 4 of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* (Cth), which permit AAT review of certain decisions relating to care percentage determinations, and by sections 49 and 50 of the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989* (Cth), which outline the Registrar's power to determine care percentages. The Tribunal found that the application was not vexatious and that the substantive application clearly identified the grounds for review. The Tribunal also granted the adjournment of the substantive application pending the Federal Court's decision in *Child Support Registrar v MQMV and Ors*.

The Tribunal ordered that the application for a stay order be granted, and that the substantive application for review be adjourned.