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. This application is about a decision made by Services Australia (Child Support) to refuse to accept an application from Mr Kershaw for an extension of time to object to an earlier decision.
2. Mr Kershaw has a child support assessment with Ms [A] for their children. As of July 2022, Mr Kershaw's 2020/21 adjusted taxable income was not available from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and Child Support were therefore required to use a provisional adjusted taxable income in the assessment. On 21 July 2022 Mr Kershaw lodged an Income Tax Declaration with Child Support stating his income for 2020/21 was $80,000.
3. In June 2024 Child Support received from the ATO notice of multiple years of adjusted taxable incomes for Mr Kershaw, as he had lodged a series of overdue tax returns. For the 2020/21 year, the adjusted taxable income of $70,497 was not applied retrospectively to the assessment, as it was lower than the provisional income already in place. On 13 June 2024 Child Support sent a letter to Mr Kershaw with their decision about the incomes that would be updated retrospectively, and what his objection rights were.
4. On 14 June 2024 Mr Kershaw's representative called Child Support to discuss the letter and ask why the 2020/21 income had not been updated. Child Support stated that as it was lodged late it would not be applied retrospectively. On 16 June 2025 Child Support called Mr Kershaw to discuss arrears and, in that conversation, again explained that the lower ATO income could not be applied as it was lodged late.
5. On 17 June 2025 Child Support received an objection from Mr Kershaw dated 10 June 2025. On 4 August 2025 Mr Kershaw applied for an extension of time to object. On 23 August 2025 Child Support refused the extension of time application meaning the objection could not be considered.
6. On 17 September 2025 Mr Kershaw applied to the Tribunal for review of this decision. The Tribunal held a hearing with Mr Kershaw on 6 February 2026. The Tribunal and Mr Kershaw have been provided with relevant documents about the decision under review from the Child Support Registrar (hearing papers numbered 1-176), and these have been considered by the Tribunal.

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Act), the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act), and the Child Support (Assessment) Regulations 2018 (the Regulations). Relevant Australian Government policy can be found in the Child Support Guide in section 3.2.3.
2. The issue which arises in this case is whether Mr Kershaw should be granted an extension of time to lodge his objection to the decision made by Child Support on 13 June 2024.

1. Section 81 of the Act provides time limits for lodging an objection to a decision made by Child Support. For residents of Australia, the Act provides that the time limit is 'within 28 days after a notice of the decision is served on the person'.
2. Section 82 of the Act allows people to apply to the Child Support Registrar for an extension of time to object if they have not done so within the required timeframe. The section states that the application must be made in the manner specified by the Child Support Registrar, and 'must state fully and in detail the grounds of the application, including the circumstances concerning, and the reasons for, the failure by the person to lodge the objection as required by section 81'. Section 83 of the Act requires that Child Support consider the application and grant or refuse it within a certain timeframe. If the application is not granted, subsection 89(1) of the Act provides that the person may apply to the Tribunal for review of that decision.
3. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Kershaw was served with the notice of decision in June 2024 as evidenced by his representative's phone call with Child Support about the decision the day after it was issued, and therefore his objection in June 2025 was approximately 11 months late.
4. The Act does not specify what the relevant considerations are when deciding to grant or refuse an application for an extension of time to object, aside from the references in section 82 to the circumstances concerning, and the reasons for, the failure by the person to lodge the objection within time. The courts have outlined relevant factors for decision makers to consider in extension applications generally, and these have been effectively summarised and adopted by Child Support. At section 10.2.5, the Child Support Guide states that when determining whether to grant an extension of time, Child Support will consider these factors:
   • reasons for delay
   • the merits of the objection
   • any prejudice to the other parent
   • whether the parent rested on their rights
   • prejudice to the general public.
5. The policy states that an extension of time will not be granted simply because a parent has made out any one of the above factors, but rather all factors must be considered and given appropriate weight, and no single factor will be conclusive on its own. However, if an objection has no merit, there is no purpose in granting the extension.
6. In Brown v Commissioner of Taxation [1999] FCA 563, the Court said:

... an applicant should show that he or she has an arguable case. No doubt if the objection on the face of it is one which is frivolous or bound to fail as a matter of law it would be a futility to permit an extension of time to enable it to be considered.

1. In Confidential and Executive Director, Social Security Appeals Tribunal [2009] AATA 172, the Tribunal, reviewing a decision on an extension application, said at [21-23]:

The Tribunal views this as a particularly significant consideration. If there is no merit in the substantive application then it will be a waste of everyone's time to permit the matter to proceed further. At the same time if it has merit and no-one is significantly prejudiced by allowing the matter to proceed it may be an injustice not to permit the applicant to have the opportunity to put his case. It is, of course, not necessary for this Tribunal to finally determine the merits of the case. It should consider only whether the claim has sufficient merit to justify an extension of time. There may be cases where there are such obvious weaknesses in the applicant's cases to justify a refusal to grant an extension.

1. In this matter the relevant legislation is found in section 58A of the Assessment Act and section 11 of the Regulations. In essence these sections provide that if a provisional income has been used in an assessment as the adjusted taxable income is not available from the ATO, and the ATO income is later obtained and was not lodged in time, and the ATO income is lower than the provisional income, the provisional income will not be updated unless 'the parent was genuinely unable to provide the Registrar with timely information due to the parent being unaware that an assessment had been made, serious ill health or injury, natural disaster, remote location, imprisonment, or other exceptional circumstances and the parent provided income information as soon as was practicable in the circumstances ...'[1].
2. Mr Kershaw's 2020/21 tax return was due to be lodged by 31 October 2021 and was lodged in June 2024. At hearing Mr Kershaw gave evidence that of the above factors, the only potential one that had applied to him was that he was impacted by the NSW floods in 2021, although he could not recall the date range. He said that his car containing his laptop and relevant paperwork was flooded and it impacted being able to manage his tax affairs. He also was doing [Occupation 1] between [City 1] and [Suburb 1], NSW, and this was impacted by bridge flooding at this time. A search of open-source information on the internet shows NSW flooding in March 2021 and March 2022. The Tribunal accepts Mr Kershaw's evidence that he was impacted by NSW flooding and that this may have contributed to late lodgement of his 2020/21 tax return, however it does not explain the ongoing failure to lodge until June 2024. Mr Kershaw gave evidence that he did not have any other exceptional circumstances relevant to his delay in lodging.
3. The Tribunal also took evidence at hearing about whether Mr Kershaw rested on his rights, and whether he had good reason for the 11-month delay. While his representative raised concerns about Child Support repeatedly calling Mr Kershaw instead of writing to him, when Mr Kershaw could not access his phone during work hours, the Tribunal finds this is not relevant to Mr Kershaw's delay in objecting to the decision made in June 2024 as he did not require further communications from Child Support in order to object as outlined in the decision letter. Mr Kershaw gave no other good reason for the delay. The Tribunal finds that Mr Kershaw rested on his rights and does not have good reason for the delay.
4. The Tribunal is satisfied that there are no means under the objection process by which Mr Kershaw's lower 2020/21 income could be retrospectively applied to replace the higher provisional income. There is no merit to the objection, and therefore it is not appropriate to grant the extension application.
5. Other concerns raised in Mr Kershaw's application regarding his payment arrangement and late payment penalties are outside the scope of this decision and need to be discussed directly with Child Support.
6. As the Tribunal has reached the same decision as the objections officer, the decision under review will be affirmed.