austlii:cth/ARTA/2025/1817
General information, not legal advice.
ARTA
2025-09-17
Original judgment source is linked above.
GKQQ and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review) [2025] ARTA 1817 (17 September 2025)
Tribunal: Senior Member S Trotter (second review)
Decision: The Tribunal varies the reviewable decision and decides that:
Names used in all second review child support published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by sections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.
CHILD SUPPORT - care percentage determinations - whether revocation under sections 54F, 54G or 54H - whether interim care determination can be made - when section 53(1)(c) applies - decision affirmed
Child Support Registrar v BKCZ [2023] FCA 1109
Child Support Registrar v CMU23 [2024] FCA 109
Hneidi v Minster for Immigration and Citizenship [ 2010] FCAFC 20: (2010) 182 FCR 115
MDXJ v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] FCA 1767
Minister for Home Affairs v G [2019] FCAFC 79; [2019] FCAFC 79; (2019) 266 FCR 569
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Department of Social Services, Child Support Guide (Guides to Social Policy Law, version 1.331, 11 August 2025)
(a) Documents provided by the Respondent pursuant to section 37 of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, index and pages numbered 1 to 265, marked R1; > > (b) Respondent's Statement of Issues dated 25 February 2025; marked R2 for identification; and > > (c) Respondent's Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions (SFIC) dated 17 April 2025; marked R3 for identification.
The part which a governmental policy should ordinarily play in the determinations of the Tribunal is a matter for the Tribunal to determine, in the context of the particular case, informed by considerations of the desirability of consistency of administrative decisions, but balanced against the ideal of justice in the individual case (Hneidi v Minster for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 20: (2010) 182 FCR 115 at [43]). Further, it is well-established that the Tribunal must make the correct or preferable decision in each case on the material before it and that the Tribunal is at liberty to adopt whatever policy it chooses, or no policy at all, in fulfilling its statutory function (Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 642-643 per Brennan J). The important matter is compliance with the terms of the relevant statute itself Minster for Home Affairs v G [2019] FCAFC 79; (2019) 266 FCR 569.
(a) Are the existing percentage of care determinations for the child to be revoked? And, if so, > > (b) Is actual care to be recorded or can percentage of care determinations different to the actual care occurring be recorded? > > (c) What are the new percentage of care determinations for the Father and the Mother? And > > (d) What is the date of effect of the new percentage of care determinations?
Issue 1: Are the existing percentage of care determinations for the child to be revoked?
Does revocation apply pursuant to section 54G?
54G Determination must be revoked if there is less than regular care etc.
(a) a responsible person (the first responsible person) for a child was to have at least regular care of the child during a care period under a determination (the first care determination) made under section 50; and
(b) the first responsible person has had no care of the child, or has had a pattern of care that is less than regular care of the child, despite another responsible person for the child making the child available to the first responsible person; and
(c) a determination of the other responsible person's percentage of care for the child has been made under section 50; and
(d) the other responsible person notifies the Registrar or the Secretary of the matter referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection within a period that the Registrar considers is reasonable in the circumstances;
Note: The Registrar must make new determinations under section 49 or 50 to replace the revoked determinations: see paragraph 49(1)(b) or 50(1)(b).
(2) The revocation of each determination takes effect:
(a) if the first responsible person never established a pattern of care in accordance with the first care determination - at the beginning of the application day for that determination; or
(b) if the first responsible person established a pattern of care in accordance with the first care determination but later ceased the established pattern of care - at the end of the day before the day on which the person ceased the previously established pattern of care.
(3) To avoid doubt, a responsible person never establishes a pattern of care if:
(a) the responsible person could not have established the pattern of care until a particular period that occurs later in a child support period; and
(b) the responsible person does not establish that pattern during that particular period.
Responsible person for a chid means a parent or non-parent carer of the child.
Does revocation apply pursuant to section 54F?
54F Determination must be revoked if there is a change to the responsible person's cost percentage
(1) The Registrar must revoke a determination of a responsible person's percentage of care (the existing percentage of care) for a child made under section 49 or 50 if:
(a) the Registrar or Secretary is notified, or otherwise becomes aware, that the care of the child that is actually taking place does not correspond with the responsible person's existing percentage of care for the child; and
(b) the Registrar is satisfied that the responsible person's cost percentage for the child would change if the Registrar were to determine, under section 49 or 50, another percentage to be the person's percentage of care for the child; and
(c) section 54G does not apply; and
(d) subsection (2) applies in relation to the individual.
Note: The Registrar must make another determination under section 49 or 50 to replace the revoked determination: see paragraph 49(1)(b) or 50(1)(b).
(2) This subsection applies in relation to a responsible person if:
(a) disregarding paragraph 53(1)(c), section 51 did not apply in relation to the responsible person; or
(b) section 51 did apply in relation to the responsible person but the maximum interim period for the determination has ended; or
(i) section 51 did apply in relation to the responsible person;
(ii) the maximum interim period for an earlier determination of the responsible person's percentage of care for the child has not ended;
(iii) an interim period does not currently apply in relation to the earlier determination;
(iv) the determination referred to in subsection (1) was made while the earlier determination was suspended under this Subdivision.
Note: For when section 51 does not apply, see section 53.
Issue 2: Can percentage of care determinations different to the actual care occurring be recorded?
Section 51 does not apply in certain circumstances:
(1) Section 51 does not apply in relation to a responsible person in relation to whom a determination is to be or has been made under section 49 or 50 if:
(a) in a case where subparagraph 49(1)(a)(i) or 50(1)(a)(i) applies in relation to the determination - the day the application referred to in that subparagraph is made is after the end of the maximum interim period for the determination; or
(b) in a case where subparagraph 49(1)(a)(ii) or 50(1)(a)(ii) applies in relation to the determination - the day referred to in that subparagraph is after the end of the maximum interim period for the determination; or
(c) the Registrar has revoked the determination under section 54F or 54H.
Issue 3: What are the new percentage of care determinations for the Father and the Mother?
Issue 4: What is the date of application of the revocation of the pre-existing percentage of care determinations and the date of application of the new percentage of care determinations?
The Tribunal varies the reviewable decision and decides that:
(2019) 266 FCR 569
(2010) 182 FCR 115