Yee and Whelan (Child support)
[2025] ARTA 1941
•22 August 2025
Yee and Whelan (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1941 (22 August 2025)
Applicant: Mr Yee
Respondent: Child Support Registrar
Other Parties: Ms Whelan
Tribunal Numbers: 2025/BC029174 and 2025/BC029208
Tribunal:General Member Hoffman
Place:Perth
Date:22 August 2025
Decision:
The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – non-agency payments – travel costs to spend time with children – not made directly to other parent – not prescribed payments – consent orders – no intention for third-party payments to be in lieu of child support – decision on the papers – decision under review affirmed
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 pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.
Statement of Reasons
BACKGROUND
Mr Yee is required to pay child support to Ms Whelan in respect of their children [Children A and B].
2025/BC029174
On 6 August 2024, Mr Yee contacted Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) to notify them of payments he had made related to the children that he wanted to be offset against his child support liability. These are referred to as non-agency payments (NAPs).
Between 6 August 2024 and 19 August 2024, the father advised of a number of payments totalling $1,300.65, that he wanted to be treated as NAPs, thereby reducing his child support liability.
On 24 August 2024, a Child Support officer decided to refuse to accept the payments amounting to $1,300.65 as NAPs (the original decision).
On 27 August 2024, the father objected to the original decision.
On 31 December 2024, the objections officer disallowed the objection which meant that the original decision was unchanged (the objection decision).
2025/BC029208
On 17 November 2024, the father notified Child Support of further payments he had made, totalling $366.33, which he wanted to be considered as NAPs.
On 19 November 2024, a Child Support officer decided to refuse to accept the payments amounting to $366.33 as NAPs (the original decision).
On 20 November 2024, the father objected to the original decision.
On 31 December 2024, the objections officer disallowed the objection which meant that the original decision was unchanged (the objection decision). This was the same date as the objection decision was made for the payments totalling $1,300.65.
The Tribunal’s review
On 16 and 22 January 2025, the father lodged applications for review with the Tribunal of the two objection decisions made on 31 December 2024.
A hearing was originally listed for 18 June 2025. The father advised that he had a family law hearing scheduled for that date. The Tribunal hearing was then listed for 13 August 2025, with the father and the mother to attend via MS Teams audio (equivalent to conference telephone).
On the day of the hearing the Tribunal rang the father who said that he had forgotten about the hearing, he was at work and was unable to stay on the call for as long as might be required for a hearing. The Tribunal asked if he was agreeable to the Tribunal making a decision on the papers and he said that he was. The father stayed on the line while the Tribunal called the mother to advise her that the hearing would not proceed and the father had agreed that the Tribunal could make a decision on the papers. In response to a question from the Tribunal, the mother said that she agreed with the decisions under review. The mother was agreeable to the hearing not proceeding.
Child Support provided documents numbered 1 to 233 in relation to 2025/BC029174 and documents numbered 1 to 214 in relation to 2025/BC029208. Copies of both sets of documents had been provided to the parties before the date of the hearing.
ISSUES
The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the following Acts:
· Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (the ART Act);
· Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act);
· Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the R & C Act); and
· Child Support (Registration and Collection) Regulations 2018 (the Regulations).
The issue which arises in this case is whether the payments amounting to $1,300.65 notified to Child Support during August 2024, and amounting to $366.33 notified to Child Support during November 2024 can be accepted as NAPs.
A further issue that arises is whether the Tribunal should make a decision on the papers, without a hearing.
CONSIDERATION
Legislation
Subsection 106(2) of the ART Act provides for the Tribunal to make a decision without a hearing if all the parties consent to that and it appears to the Tribunal that the issues for determination can be adequately determined without a hearing.
There are three provisions under which payments made by the payer of child support can be accepted as NAPs and therefore be offset against the child support liability.
Section 71 of the R & C Act may apply if a payment is made by the paying parent directly to the payee (rather than via the child support system). Such payments may be credited against a parent’s child support liability if certain conditions are met. One of those conditions is that both parents intended for the direct payments to be paid in lieu of the child support liability as determined by Child Support.
Section 71A of the R & C Act may apply when a paying parent makes a payment to a third party. If both parents intended for that payment (or part of it) to be made in lieu of child support, then Child Support must credit the relevant amount against a parent’s child support liability.
Section 71C of the R & C Act provides that when a payer who has less than 14% care of the child makes payments of a particular kind to the payee or another person, these payments may be credited against up to 30% of the child support liability regardless of the intentions of the payer and payee, if at least 70% of the liability has been paid.
Regulation 19 of the Regulations specifies the kinds of payments (prescribed payments) that could be credited against a child support liability regardless of the parents’ intentions. The specified payments include the following:
(a) child care costs for the child who is the subject of the enforceable maintenance liability;
(b) fees charged by a school or preschool for that child;
(c) amounts payable for uniforms and books required by a school or preschool for that child;
(d) fees for essential medical and dental services for that child;
(e) the payee’s share of amounts payable for rent or a security bond for the payee’s home;
(f) the payee’s share of amounts payable for utilities, rates or body corporate charges for the payee’s home;
(g) the payee’s share of repayments on a loan that financed the payee’s home;
(h) costs to the payee of obtaining and running a motor vehicle, including repairs and standing costs.
Section 71D of the R & C Act allows for NAPs not to be credited under section 71, 71A or 71C if, in the circumstances of the particular case, the amount ought not to be credited.
Should the Tribunal make its decision without a hearing?
When the Tribunal contacted the father on 13 August 2025, he advised that he was not able to proceed with the hearing and he was agreeable to the decision being made on the papers. The mother was also agreeable to this. The third party to this review is the Child Support Registrar.
Pursuant to subsection 106(2) of the ART Act, on 14 August 2025 the Tribunal issued an order to the Registrar to make a written submission stating whether the Registrar does or does not consent to the proceeding being determined without a hearing. On 20 August 2025, the Child Support Registrar confirmed that he consented to the proceeding being determined on the papers.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the issues for determination in this review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to proceeding. This is apparent from the discussion of the legislation and evidence that follows.
As the Tribunal is satisfied that the issues for determination can be adequately determined without a hearing and that the three parties to this review have consented to that happening, the Tribunal will proceed to make its decision without a hearing.
Evidence and consideration of evidence regarding the NAPs
The father made various payments to third parties such as airlines and hotels in order to spend time with the children. He wanted these costs to be treated as NAPs. He referred to Court Orders dated [July] 2024. The relevant clause of the Court Orders is clause 5(e) which reads as follows:
The father will meet the costs of all travel by the children and himself or his nominee for the purpose of the children spending time with him, and the parents intend that any child support assessment shall take these payments into account under the Child Support Assessment Act.
The Tribunal observes that the legislation to do with NAPs is contained in the R & C Act and not the Assessment Act.
The Tribunal will first consider the legislation to do with NAPs.
As the payments in question were not made directly by the father to the mother, they cannot be considered as NAPs under section 71 of the R & C Act.
As the payments the father wanted to be accepted as NAPs are not prescribed payments, as set out in paragraph 23 above, section 71C of the R & C Act does not apply. These means the payments cannot be accepted as NAPs under section 71C.
The Tribunal then considered whether section 71A of the R & C Act applies. This applies where both parties intended for the payment (or part of it) to be made in lieu of child support. As noted earlier, the mother’s position was that she agreed with the objection decisions. That is, she did not agree that the payments related to travel should be accepted as NAPs.
The father’s position was that as the mother agreed to the Court Orders, she had indicated her consent for the payments he made to do with costs of travel to be treated as NAPs. However as already noted, the Court Orders refer to the Assessment Act and not the R & C Act.
The Tribunal makes the following observations.
As the legislation to do with NAPs is contained in the R & C Act and not the Assessment Act, the Tribunal is satisfied that clause 5(e) of the Orders is not referring to NAPs. On that basis the Tribunal is satisfied that by agreeing to the consent orders, the mother was not indicating that she consented to travel costs incurred by the father, to be accepted as NAPs.
The Tribunal observes that when lodging his application for review, the father gave the following reason for his application:
As I provided Interim Federal Court Orders – which when made in court proceedings stated that travel costs would be agreed to be put against the child support assessment. Until speaking with an objection officer I was not even aware of there being two separate child support acts. The officer also confirmed herself that its common that the family court is fully across and aware of both Acts when making these orders as CSA is a difficult system to navigate.
When the orders were originally provided to CSA my authorised representative had multiple conversations regarding the orders and how to provide receipts and to confirm that these would indeed be put against the child support assessment.
The Tribunal is of the view that clause 5(e) of the Orders is referring to the change of assessment process for which a person can apply. This is set out in Part 6A of the Assessment Act which is titled “Departure from administrative assessment of child support (departure determinations)”.[1]
[1] This is explained in the Child Support Guide at section 5 - Change of Assessment, accessible at
Section 98A of the Assessment Act (which falls under Part 6A) states (amongst other things) that “The grounds for deciding whether to make a determination are the same as a court uses in deciding whether to make an order under Division 4 of Part 7.”
Section 117 of the Assessment Act sets out the matters to which a court must be satisfied before making a departure order.
Subsection 117(9) of the Assessment Act provides that the court is not limited as to the matters which it may take into account.
The Tribunal is of the view that clause 5(e) of the orders is a reference to subsection 117(9) of the Assessment Act. That is, if there was a change of assessment (departure) application, then the costs of travel as incurred by the father would be taken into account.
The Tribunal would add, that taking particular costs into account does not mean that a child support assessment would necessarily change because of them, but that they would be taken into account as part of a broader consideration as to whether there should be a change made to the child support assessment.
As the mother’s evidence was that she did not intend for the third-party payments made by the father to be made in lieu of child support, and the payments were not prescribed payments, the Tribunal can only affirm the decision under review, pursuant to sections 71A and 71C of the R & C Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.
| Date of hearing as scheduled: | Wednesday, 13 August 2025 |
| Representative for the Applicant: | Not applicable |
| Representative for the Other party: | Not applicable |
0
0
0