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.

1. Mr Ehrlichmann and Ms [A] are parties to a child support case.
2. Mr Ehrlichmann was assessed to pay the fixed annual rate (FAR) of child support for each of his children, [Children A and B], for the child support period 1 September 2024 to 30 November 2025. That resulted in an annual rate of child support of $3,440.
3. On 3 October 2024, Mr Ehrlichmann applied to Services Australia - Child Support (Child Support) for the FAR not to apply.
4. On 4 October 2024, Child Support refused Mr Ehrlichmann's application.
5. Mr Ehrlichmann objected to that decision. On 14 March 2025, a Child Support objections officer disallowed the objection.
6. On 16 July 2025, Mr Ehrlichmann applied to the Tribunal seeking a review of Child Support's decision.

1. By his application received on 16 July 2025, Mr Ehrlichmann applies for an extension of time within which to seek a Tribunal review of the decision dated 14 March 2025.
2. In considering this matter, the Tribunal has had regard to Mr Ehrlichmann's application for an extension of time, material provided by Child Support, and the evidence given by Mr Ehrlichmann to the Tribunal during a telephone call on 5 September 2025.
3. Section 18 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and Rule 5 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Rules 2024 provide that an application must be made to the Tribunal within 28 days of the person being given a copy of the decision. Mr Ehrlichmann did not do this.
4. The general starting position for extension of time applications is that proceedings commenced outside a statutory period will not be entertained (Lucic v Nolan [1982] FCA 217; [1982] 45 ALR 411 at 416). However, the primary concern "is to do that which will enable justice to be done between the parties" (see, for example, Martinsen v Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services [2004] FCA 297 per Spender J). In Hunter Valley Developments P/L v Cohen [1984] FCA 176; [1984] 3 FCR 344, the Federal Court summarised the conditions to be considered before an extension of time will be granted, namely that:
   • there should be an acceptable explanation of the delay; and
   • it must be fair and equitable in the circumstances.

1. In determining whether it is fair and equitable to extend time, the Court indicated that relevant considerations include any prejudice to the parties and the merits of the substantive application.

1. Mr Ehrlichmann told the Tribunal that, when he spoke with Child Support about the objection decision, he suggested Child Support should wait until he lodged his income tax return, and they could make a decision then. He said the Child Support officer said "alright". A couple of weeks later he was advised he was in default on his home loan repayments and other payments. Child Support had deducted money from his bank account.
2. He said he just gave up at that time.
3. A file note, dated 26 March 2025, records that, in a telephone call, Child Support advised Mr Ehrlichmann that the objection had been disallowed. Mr Ehrlichmann was advised he had appeal rights.
4. A file note, dated 16 July 2025, records that Mr Ehrlichmann telephoned Child Support to discuss the objection decision. Mr Ehrlichmann said he had spoken to someone on 14 July 2025, who advised him to upload his bank statements to show his income is low. Mr Ehrlichmann was then advised that Child Support could not reconsider the decision, and he could make an application to the Tribunal.
5. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Ehrlichmann was aware that the objection decision had been made. He was posted a copy of the objection decision, by letter dated 14 March 2025, and he was advised verbally on 26 March 2025.
6. There is no record of Mr Ehrlichmann seeking to dispute that decision until he telephoned Child Support again in mid-July 2025. He then made his Tribunal application.
7. The Tribunal finds that, having been advised his objection decision, Mr Ehrlichmann "gave up" as he stated. He therefore rested on his review rights at that time.
8. When Child Support later deducted amounts from his account, to pay child support arrears he owed, he contacted Child Support again and made his Tribunal application.

1. Under section 65A of the Act, a FAR applies where relevantly:
   • the paying parent did not receive an income support payment in the last relevant year of income; and
   • the paying parent's adjusted taxable income in the last relevant year of income is less than the pension PP (single) maximum basic amount; and
   • the paying parent does not have at least shared care of the child.
2. It seems clear that the requirements of section 65A were met from 1 September 2024 when the FAR applied.
3. The paying parent may apply under section 65B of the Act for section 65A not to apply in their particular case. Subsection 65B(2) relevantly provides two requirements which must be met in order for the FAR not to apply. The first requirement is that the person's "current income" must be less than the pension PP (single) maximum amount (which for the relevant year when Mr Ehrlichmann made his application is $25,225).
4. Subsection 66A(4) provides:

(a) any money earned, derived or received by the parent for his or her own use or benefit, other than money earned, derived or received in a manner, or from a source, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph; or

(b) a periodical payment by way of a gift or allowance, other than a payment of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

1. The second requirement in subsection 65B(2) is that "it would be unjust and inequitable" to expect the person to pay the FAR.
2. Mr Ehrlichmann told the Tribunal that his income was less than the PP (single) maximum amount.
3. He said he did not work a lot last year. He was doing [Occupation 1] work. He was paid into his bank account. His income for last year was about $15,500.
4. Mr Ehrlichmann said he is not working now, as he is in a lot of distress. He is not in receipt of Centrelink benefits. He is living as minimally as he can. He does not eat anything for 3 days per week.
5. Mr Ehrlichmann said he took about $5,000 out of his offset account, to pay for living expenses. He generally used the funds in that account to meet his home loan repayments.
6. He said Child Support deducted money from his offset account, to pay arrears he owed. He then defaulted on his home loan repayments. He said he no longer has funds in that account. He has no savings or investments. The home is in his and Ms [A's] names, but the home loan is just in his name.
7. Mr Ehrlichmann said he has no income or money currently. He is under a lot of stress. He and Ms [A] are still involved in property settlement proceedings and Child Support is trying to collect arrears from him.
8. The Tribunal notes that, in a copy of Mr Ehrlichmann's bank statements contained in the papers provided by Child Support, there were a number of cash deposits, totalling $2,850, made into his account between August 2024 and January 2025.
9. Mr Ehrlichmann told the Tribunal that he withdrew cash from his account to pay his bills. He said he keeps cash around the house and, when he needs it, he can use it. He said, if he kept the money in his account, Child Support would take it.
10. The Tribunal notes that a change of assessment objection decision was made by Child Support on 30 August 2024. In their reasons for decision, the objections officer states:

However, given the clear resources of cash at times (deposits into accounts) and the ability to maintain mortgage repayments, I do not find Mr Ehrlichmann's situation is aligned with a low rate of child support or the minimum rate. The fixed rate of child support (detailed above) is utilised for those instances where a parent has a low income but apparent additional financial resources. I find Mr Ehrlichmann's financial position best aligns with this, and I accept the use of the fixed annual rate appropriately reflects his situation.

1. Mr Ehrlichmann told the Tribunal that he did not seek to have the change of assessment decision reviewed as he "gave up".
2. The Tribunal concludes that, whilst it cannot be said that Mr Ehrlichmann's substantive application has no merit, it does not have obvious merit.
3. Mr Ehrlichmann's bank statements record cash deposits and transfers from other accounts. He has also given up work. An objections officer has found that the FAR appropriately reflects his financial situation. They are relevant considerations in determining whether it would be unjust and inequitable to expect Mr Ehrlichmann to pay the FAR.

1. The Tribunal is satisfied that granting an extension of time would not cause Ms [A] undue prejudice. However, she would likely feel obliged to participate in the Tribunal review process.

1. The Tribunal has found that Mr Ehrlichmann's substantive application does not have obvious merit and Mr Ehrlichmann initially rested on his review rights, by deciding not to seek review of the objection decision.
2. Mr Ehrlichmann has the option of making a further change of assessment application with Child Support, if he believes the assessment is unfair.
3. The Tribunal finds that the interests of justice favour not granting an extension of time.
4. The Tribunal therefore refuses Mr Ehrlichmann's application for an extension of time.