The Tribunal sends the matter back to the Secretary with the direction that Ms Carnaghan's entitlement to childcare subsidy for [Child 2] is to be reassessed accordingly.

SOCIAL SECURITY - childcare subsidy - cancellation - no attendance within 26 weeks of grant - no warning or inquiry as to plans for child, no notification of cancellation determination, and conflicting advice - mandatory requirement to notify - cancellation void at law - eligibility continued and applicant retains entitlement if remaining criteria met - decision set aside, substituted and remitted

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 201(1A) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

1. Ms Carnaghan and [Mr A] are the parents of [Child 1] and [Child 2]. Ms Carnaghan has been in receipt of childcare subsidy (CCS) in respect of [Child 1] since April 2021. This review is only in relation to [Child 2].
2. Ms Carnaghan submitted a joint claim for paid parental leave and CCS on 22 May 2024. On 12 June 2024, Ms Carnaghan was notified in writing that her CCS claim had been finalised and had been granted from 29 April 2024. The letter recorded the CCS percentages for [the children] as 74.92% and 89.24% respectively.
3. On 1 July 2024, following an updated combined adjusted taxable income, Centrelink wrote to Ms Carnaghan and advised that the CCS percentages for [the children] were now 74.22% and 88.05% respectively.
4. According to Centrelink records, a determination was made on 28 October 2024 to cancel Ms Carnaghan's eligibility for CCS in respect of [Child 2], because he did not attend any child care sessions within 26 weeks of 29 April 2024. However, Ms Carnaghan was not notified of the cancellation determination.
5. Coincidently, also on 28 October 2024, Ms Carnaghan entered into a written care arrangement with [named Early Learning Centre] ([ELC]). [Child 2] commenced his first session of child care on Wednesday 20 November 2024.
6. On 2 December 2024, [Mr A] submitted a claim for paid parental leave. The form also included a claim for CCS as a result of him inadvertently ticking the box for CCS. A Centrelink officer contacted [Mr A] on 11 December 2024 and advised him to withdraw his CCS application because Ms Carnaghan was already in receipt of CCS for the children. The withdrawal was completed by the Centrelink officer on [Mr A]'s behalf.
7. It was not until 7 February 2025 when Ms Carnaghan accessed the Centrelink website to update the new child care details for [Child 1], who was commencing after-school care with a new child care provider, that she noticed there was no record of her eligibility for CCS in respect of [Child 2]. She then lodged an application for CCS in respect of [the children] on the same day. The application was subsequently granted from 20 January 2025. Ms Carnaghan was notified in writing on 10 February 2025. The letter recorded the CCS percentages for [the children] as 72.32% and 84.88% respectively.
8. Ms Carnaghan requested a review of the decision to pay her CCS from 20 January 2025 on 11 March 2025, which was subsequently affirmed by an authorised review officer on 14 March 2025. Ms Carnaghan then lodged an application to the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 16 March 2025 for an independent review of Centrelink's decision of 14 March 2025.
9. Ms Carnaghan requested a review of the cancellation decision of 28 October 2024 on 19 March 2025. An authorised review officer affirmed the decision on 29 April 2025 and she subsequently lodged an application to the Tribunal on 21 May 2025 for an independent review of Centrelink's decision of 29 April 2025.
10. On 12 August 2025, the Tribunal conducted a hearing at which Ms Carnaghan participated by conference telephone and gave oral evidence to the Tribunal on affirmation. Her partner, [Mr A] also participated by conference telephone and gave oral evidence to the Tribunal on affirmation as a witness.
11. The Tribunal had before it the relevant documents from Centrelink's files and computer records in respect of the cancellation decision, numbered 1 to 163. Ms Carnaghan confirmed to the Tribunal her receipt of these documents. The Tribunal also considered a submission from Ms Carnaghan numbered A1 to A3 and additional evidence discussed at hearing, numbered A4 to A37. Relevant aspects of the evidence and material before the Tribunal will be referred to in the Tribunal's consideration of the issues which it has to decide.

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (the Act) and the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act) and the Child Care Subsidy Minister's Rules 2017.
2. The issue to be considered by the Tribunal is whether it was correct to cancel Ms Carnaghan's eligibility for CCS in respect of [Child 2] on 28 October 2024.

1. Ms Carnaghan told the Tribunal that she had an issue with the overall treatment of the matter by Centrelink. She further stated that she received conflicting advice in relation to the effectiveness of the cancellation, despite acknowledgement by Centrelink that they had failed to notify her of the cancellation in respect of [Child 2] on 28 October 2024. Ms Carnaghan told the Tribunal that had she been notified in a timely manner she could have lodged a new claim prior to [Child 2]'s commencement at [the] ELC on 20 November 2020, thus ensuring receipt of her CCS entitlements in respect of [Child 2].
2. In this case there is no dispute that Ms Carnaghan met the initial eligibility requirements to receive CCS as a fee reduction for [the children] when a session of care was provided, in accordance with section 85BA of the Act. As such, an eligibility determination was made by Centrelink in respect of [the children] under subsection 67CC(1) of the Administration Act on 12 June 2024. The discretionary date of effect was determined to be 29 April 2024, in accordance with subsection 67CC(4) of the Administration Act. It is noteworthy that the date of effect under subsection 67CC(4) could also have been 13 May 2024, the following Monday commencing a CCS fortnightly period.
3. It is undisputed that [Child 2] did not attend a child care session until 20 November 2024, the week beginning 18 November 2024. This is more than 26 weeks after 29 April 2024, the commencement of the eligibility determination made on 12 June 2024. While it is within 26 weeks of Ms Carnaghan's application for CCS of 22 May 2024, it is more than 26 weeks after 13 May 2024, the closest Monday commencing a CCS fortnight prior to Ms Carnaghan's application.
4. The written care arrangement for [Child 2] to attend [the] ELC commenced on 28 October 2024, the same day that Centrelink determined to cancel Ms Carnaghan's eligibility for CCS by fee reduction for [Child 2]. Had Centrelink contacted Ms Carnaghan, the Tribunal considers it would have been reasonable, in the circumstances where commencement at [the] ELC by [Child 2] was imminent, for Centrelink to exercise the discretion under subsection 67CC(2) of the Administration Act and not determine to cancel Ms Carnaghan's eligibility.
5. Paragraph 67CC(2)(d) of the Administration Act provides that the Secretary may make a determination in respect of a person for whom an eligibility determination is in effect under section 85BA of the Act, that the person is not eligible for CCS fee reduction in respect of a child if, relevantly, for at least 26 weeks a weekly report from the child care provider under section 204B of the Act has not been given to the Secretary indicating that the child has attended a session of care. It was on this basis that Centrelink cancelled Ms Carnaghan's entitlement in respect of [Child 2] on 28 October 2024.
6. Paragraph 67CE(1)(a) of the Administration Act states that the Secretary must give written notice of a cancellation made under section 67CC about the person's eligibility for CCS for a child, no later than seven days after the determination is made. This is a mandatory requirement. There is no discretion available to exercise. In this case, Centrelink were bound to notify Ms Carnaghan of the cancellation by 4 November 2024 and, by their own admission, they did not.
7. The Tribunal considered the implications of Centrelink not complying with paragraph 67CE(1)(a) of the Administration Act and noted in particular the matter of Nolan and Secretary, Department of Education [2024] AATA 3309 (Nolan). While the cancellation in the case of Nolan was due to failure to immunise under paragraph 67CC(2)(c), Centrelink failed to notify Ms Nolan, as they failed to notify Ms Carnaghan. Furthermore, while the issue at hand in Nolan was in regard to the granting of an extension of time to apply for a review, a detailed discussion was had in relation to Centrelink's failure to notify of the cancellation.
8. Senior Member Morris notes that Centrelink initially submitted that the warning notices sent to Ms Nolan prior to the actual cancellation determination being made, could equate to notification of the cancellation. This submission was not accepted and as the respondent, Centrelink later stated that they would like to consider their position in relation to the validity of the cancellation. Senior Member Morris concluded with a preliminary finding that, "the applicant has a strong case to make that the purported cancellation of her CCS was void in law because the Respondent's departmental officers did not follow the mandatory requirements of the Act, and that the applicant's CCS should be restored from that date as if the cancellation had never occurred". This was the reason that the extension of time was granted to Ms Nolan.
9. Unlike Ms Nolan, Ms Carnaghan received no warning letters from Centrelink and no contact was made to enquire as to the plans for [Child 2]'s child care. To date, Ms Carnaghan is yet to receive written notification of the cancellation on 28 October 2024, other than a note in the authorised review officer's decision. The Tribunal finds that as notification of the cancellation of Ms Carnaghan's CCS eligibility was not sent to her, the cancellation is "void at law". Consequently, Ms Carnaghan retains her entitlement to receive CCS for [Child 2] by fee reduction if she meets the remainder of the criteria under section 67CD of the Administration Act, in particular, that the child care provider has given the Secretary a report under section 204B of the Administration Act in relation to the child for the relevant week/s. The necessary information is not before the Tribunal to make such a determination.
10. The Tribunal also noted that as Ms Carnaghan did not receive notification of the cancellation decision, the time limits imposed under section 109D of the Administration Act in respect of an application to Centrelink for a review do not apply.

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that Ms Carnaghan's eligibility for childcare subsidy in respect of [Child 2] continued from 28 October 2024.

The Tribunal sends the matter back to the Secretary with the direction that Ms Carnaghan's entitlement to CCS for [Child 2] is to be reassessed accordingly.