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 Nealey and [Ms A] are the parents of two children for whom there is a child support case.
2. On 23 July 2024 Services Australia - Child Support (Child Support) made a decision to reconcile Mr Nealey's estimated income for the 2022/23 financial year. Mr Nealey had a right to object to that decision. To do so within time, he needed to object within 28 days of being notified of the decision, pursuant to section 81 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Registration Act).
3. Child Support has recorded that Mr Nealey objected to the income reconciliation decision on 15 November 2024, and that he requested an extension of time to object. On 21 August 2025 Child Support made a decision to refuse Mr Nealey's request for extension of time. On 25 August 2025 Mr Nealey applied to this Tribunal for an independent review of Child Support's decision.
4. A hearing took place on 8 December 2025. Mr Nealey attended the hearing by video and gave sworn evidence. The Tribunal had before it documents submitted by Child Support numbered 1 to 275, a copy of which had also been provided to Mr Nealey.

1. It is not in dispute that in June 2022 Mr Nealey made an election to use an estimate of his 2022/23 income in the child support assessment, and he estimated an income of $109,010 as his income for that year. On 23 July 2024 Child Support was advised by the Australian Taxation Office (the ATO) that Mr Nealey's actual income for the 2022/23 financial year was $128,695, and consequently Mr Nealey's estimated income was reconciled, resulting in an arrears amount of $2,207.01. At some point between 23 July 2024 and 14 September 2024 the ATO issued an amended 2022/23 taxable income for Mr Nealey of $119,848, but Child Support initially decided not to amend the assessment to reflect Mr Nealey's amended 2022/23 taxable income.
2. Mr Nealey told the Tribunal that he does not recall receiving the letter dated 23 July 2024, and he says that if he had received it he would have responded to it promptly. Mr Nealey said that he first became aware of the arrears of child support that had been created by letter dated 29 September 2024. The letter dated 29 September 2024 is not included in the evidence before the Tribunal, but Mr Nealey described the letter as a statement of account that set out the child support liability he was then required to pay.
3. Mr Nealey told the Tribunal that when he received the letter dated 29 September 2024 he immediately contacted Child Support. He was concerned about the overall overdue amount, and also about the 2022/23 income that had been used for him in the assessment. The documents provided by Child Support confirm that Mr Nealey spoke to Child Support on 2 October 2024, and raised both the income being used for the 2022/23 financial year and a concern that he had made a number of payments that he believed were not reflected in his statement of account. Mr Nealey was advised to lodge an objection and provide evidence, which he did on 9 October 2024.
4. On 9 October 2024 Mr Nealey sent an email to Child Support in which he says he is writing in relation to the advice provided in the letter dated 29 September 2024 advising that he has an overdue amount of $3,040.93. In relation to the 2022/23 financial year Mr Nealey sets out a calculation of the amount he believes he should have been required to pay based on an income for him of $119,848 and an income for [Ms A] of $62,872, and also lists the payments he says he actually made to Child Support within that financial year. Mr Nealey stated that by his calculation he had paid only approximately $36 less than he was required to pay for that year. In relation to the 2023/24 financial year Mr Nealey set out similar calculations and stated that by his calculation he had paid substantially more for that financial year than he was required to pay.
5. I am satisfied that it was Mr Nealey's intention, in sending the email to Child Support on 9 October 2024, to object to the incomes used in his assessments, including the income used for him to calculate his child support liability in the 2022/23 financial year. It is clear that Child Support did not consider that email to be an objection, and in fact did not respond at all to Mr Nealey's email. It was not until Mr Nealey followed up on 12 November 2024 that Child Support told him he needed to provide a particular form, an "Objecting to a child support decision" form, and Mr Nealey then submitted that form on 15 November 2024. I am satisfied that the email dated 9 October 2024 meets the requirements for lodging an objection set out in sections 80 and 84 of the Registration Act, and I find that Mr Nealey in fact lodged his objection on 9 October 2024.
6. However, in respect of the reconciliation of his 2022/23 estimate election, I am satisfied that Mr Nealey was in fact notified of that decision by letter dated 23 July 2024. I accept that Mr Nealey does not recall that letter, and that in fact he did not realise there may be an issue with his income until he received a statement of account dated 29 September 2024, but there is no evidence that the notice dated 23 July 2024 was not sent to Mr Nealey or that he did not receive it. Consequently Mr Nealey's objection was still made after the end of the 28 day period following the date Mr Nealey was served with a notice of the decision.
7. In any event, it is not now disputed that on 25 September 2025 Child Support decided to change the estimate reconciliation decision. On that date, Child Support re-reconciled Mr Nealey's 2022/23 income estimate using his amended 2022/23 taxable income of $119,848. This resulted in the arrears arising from the estimate reconciliation reducing from $2,207.01 to $1,238.31.
8. At the hearing Mr Nealey confirmed that, in his view, the correct income to be used in his estimate reconciliation for the 2022/23 financial year was $119,848, and that to that extent he agrees that the reconciliation of his estimate is correct. However, he continues to have concerns about the overall amount of arrears owing on his account. For example, in respect of the 2022/23 financial year Mr Nealey said that by his calculations the total amount he should have been required to pay for that year was approximately $5,161, and yet his records show he paid a total of $6,094.66 in that year, so he does not understand how there can still be arrears owing. Mr Nealey explained that he is concerned that some of the payments he has made may not be showing up on his child support statements, but he has had great difficulty getting anyone to properly explain how his payments are accounted for. Mr Nealey also said that he has been charged penalties and fees on his child support liability and he feels this is unfair, given that he has consistently raised issues with Child Support as they have come to his attention and there have often been long delays in Child Support responding to him.
9. As discussed with Mr Nealey at the hearing, the Tribunal's jurisdiction in this matter is limited to reviewing the decision made by Child Support on 21 August 2025 to refuse the extension of time for Mr Nealey to object to the estimate reconciliation decision made on 23 July 2024. As the estimate reconciliation decision has already been corrected, I am satisfied that Mr Nealey's objection to that decision no longer has any prospect of success, and on that basis the decision to refuse the request for an extension of time is affirmed.
10. Mr Nealey continues to have concerns about how the outstanding arrears on his child support account has come about, and also in respect of penalties imposed. Mr Nealey will pursue those matters separately with Child Support.