1. Ms Porawski and [Mr A] are the parents of [two named children]. Generally, the father is required to pay child support to the mother.
2. On 24 July 2023, an officer from Services Australia - Child Support (Child Support) made a decision to accept an estimate of income of $79,937 for the father, to be applied to the child support assessment from 8 July 2023 to 30 June 2024 (the original decision).
3. The mother lodged an objection to the original decision on 9 April 2024.
4. Generally, a person has 28 days in which to lodge an objection to a decision made by Child Support. Because of the time that had elapsed between the date of the original decision - which was 24 July 2023 - and 9 April 2024, the mother requested an extension of time (EOT) so her objection could be considered.
5. On 15 April 2025, a Child Support officer decided to refuse the EOT request (the EOT decision).
6. On 12 May 2025, the mother sought a review by this Tribunal of the EOT decision. The matter was heard on 30 July 2025.
7. The Tribunal had before it a bundle of documents provided by the CSA (numbered 1 to 162), a copy of which had been provided to the mother before the hearing. She gave affirmed evidence via MS Teams audio (similar to a conference telephone).

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act) and the (Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the R & C Act).
2. The main issues which arise in this case are whether the mother lodged an objection within the 28-day timeframe; if not, why not; and can an EOT be granted.

1. Section 63B of the Assessment Act allows the Registrar (Child Support) to amend an assessment of child support which used an income estimate if certain criteria are met. There is a note that this provision does not limit the power under section 75 to amend assessments.
2. Section 75 of the Assessment Act allows the CSA to amend an administrative assessment as considered necessary to give effect to the Assessment Act or the R & C Act.
3. Part VII of the R & C Act is about the procedures related to objections made for certain decisions. Section 79D of the R & C Act gives a simplified outline of Part VII and sets out that Child Support is required to reconsider a decision to which a person has objected.
4. Subsection 80(1) of the R & C Act requires a person objecting to a decision to make their application in writing.[1]
5. Section 81 of the R & C Act is about time limits on lodging objections. Relevant to this review, it provides that a person has 28 days after a notice of the decision was served on them, in which to lodge an objection.
6. Section 82 of the R & C Act provides for a person to apply for an extension of time to lodge an objection, after the 28-day period has elapsed. It requires that the application must state fully and in detail the grounds for the application, including the circumstances concerning, and the reasons for failing, to lodge the objection within the 28-day timeframe. It also states that the application must be lodged in the manner specified by Child Support.
7. Subsection 83(1) of the R & C Act requires Child Support to either grant or refuse an EOT application, and if granted, to deal with the objection.

1. The Tribunal is required to consider whether it should grant an EOT for the mother to lodge her objection to the decision made on 24 July 2023. Other decisions provide guidance to the Tribunal in this matter. It is clear that generally, the statutory time limit of 28 days is to be enforced unless there are acceptable reasons for departing from this prescribed timeframe.
2. The Federal Court in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment [1984] FCA 176 said at [18]:

Special circumstances need not be shown but the court will not grant the application unless positively satisfied that it is proper to do so. The "prescribed period" of 28 days is not to be ignored. Indeed it is the prima facie rule that proceedings outside that period will not be entertained. It is a precondition to the exercise in his favour that the applicant for an extension show an "acceptable explanation of the delay" and that it is "fair and equitable in the circumstances" to extend time".

1. In Re Mulheron and Australian Telecommunications Corporation [1991] AATA 673, O'Connor J of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal noted the following principles of relevance to this review:
   • It is relevant whether the applicant rested on his [or her] rights or took action to make the decision maker aware that the decision was being contested;
   • Any prejudice to the respondent that would be caused by the granting of the extension of time is relevant;
   • Any wider prejudice to the general public in terms of disruption to established practice is relevant;
   • The merits of the substantial application are relevant; and
   • Fairness in granting an extension of time as between the applicant and other persons in like position is relevant.
2. The Tribunal will therefore consider this matter under the following headings:
   • Did the mother rest on her rights?
   • Is there any prejudice to the other parent?
   • Is there any prejudice to the general public?
   • Are there merits in reviewing the substantive application?
   • Is it fair to grant the extension of time?

1. The original decision was made on 24 July 2023. A notice advising the mother of that decision was sent to her on 24 July 2023. An assessment notice which recorded the estimate of income of $79,937 was sent to the mother on the same date.
2. These documents stated the following:

Call us if you think this decision is incorrect because information was not provided or taken into account; or the legislation has not been applied correctly. We will chek the details and explain the decision. You can ask us to review the decision (we call this an objection) within 28 days from the date you receive this letter. For more information about how to object go to our website servicesaustralia.gov.au/reviewsandappeals [bolded in the original]

1. The mother confirmed that she received the letters from Child Support. On the basis that the decision was mailed to her and allowing time for a letter to be printed, posted and delivered by Australia Post, she would have had until 6 September 2023 to lodge an objection to a decision notification dated 24 July 2023. The mother's objection was dated 9 April 2024 and received on that date by Child Support, some seven months later.
2. The mother was also sent a letter and a notice of assessment recording the father's estimate of income on 12 and 13 September 2023 respectively.
3. Prior to his income estimate of $79,937 being accepted, the father was assessed on his 2022 taxable income of $138,693.
4. The mother confirmed that she knew about the estimate of income. She did not object at the time, in part because she was aware of Child Support's reconciliation process and thought that when his income estimate was reconciled against his 2024 taxable income, that would fix up any shortfall in child support.
5. The mother said that when she was advised in December 2023 that the father's taxable income for the 2023 tax year was nil, she realised she could not rely on the reconciliation process in relation to 2024 to correct what she believed was an understatement of his income for the 2023-24 financial year.
6. On 22 January 2024, the mother lodged a change of assessment (COA) application. The decision made in that matter was favourable to the mother and dated 31 May 2024. The father's adjusted taxable income was varied to $240,500. According to the reasons for the COA decision, the mother was seeking a retrospective increase to the rate of child support. The date of effect of that decision was 22 January 2024, which is in accordance with the usual practice: a change of assessment is usually applied from the date that the person applied for a COA.
7. This means that the father was assessed on the estimate of income for the period 24 July 2023 to 21 January 2024.
8. The mother said that she was advised of the COA decision on 2 April 2024. She said she had thought the COA decision would be backdated to July 2023. When she realised that was not the case, she lodged her objection to the estimate decision on 9 April 2024.
9. The mother gave additional reasons for not lodging her objection by the due date. She had told Child Support that she was dealing with a lot of ongoing issues at the time, including having a child at home in poor health.'
10. The mother said that in in July 2022, her rental home was flooded. A couple of months later the rental home was sold. She and her sons had to find a new home in January 2023.
11. The mother said that her youngest son had always struggled with anxiety and that was associated with seeing his father. Her son is mentally unwell. He would do things like hide keys so he would not have to go to see his father. He would destroy property. She said that more recently there was an incident where she had to call the police because of her son's behaviours. Her son refused to go to school. The father drew up a contract with the son so that he went to school. His mental health declined,
12. The mother said that from about August 2023, she homeschooled her son and continued doing that through 2024. She stopped work to attend to him. His school attendance is now up to about 72%.
13. The mother said that due to the separation and divorce, she has had a horrendous eight years. Her former husband is financially controlling and bullying. He still has financial control over her through the child support system.
14. She said that what has happened with the estimate was not fair. The Tribunal accepts that the mother has been under significant stress for a long period of time.
15. The Tribunal is satisfied that the mother rested on her rights when she did not lodge an objection to the estimate within 28 days. She expected the reconciliation process would fix up what she considered to be an incorrect estimate of income, and chose not to lodge an objection within the 28-day period.
16. The mother lodged her COA application in January 2024, hoping that this would be backdated to July 2023. That did not happen. It was after that, that the mother lodged her objection decision.
17. The Tribunal is satisfied that the mother did rest on her rights, at least until January 2024 when she lodged her COA application. That was lodged when the mother became aware of the father's 2023 taxable income of nil. As noted above, the COA decision varied his income to $240,500 from 22 January 2024.

1. Prejudice to the other party could occur if, for example, the father experienced difficulties in obtaining documents that he might want to submit as evidence, and these difficulties were due to the time that has elapsed since the original decision was made, now over two years ago.
2. If an EOT is granted and an objection decision is made in the mother's favour, this will create arrears for the father.
3. Also, the mother lodged a COA application and a decision was made in her favour but not backdated to 23 July 2023 as she had requested. It is reasonable for the father to assume that there will be no further changes to his child support liability in relation to the 2023 calendar year.
4. The Tribunal considers that allowing the EOT will prejudice the other parent.

Is there any prejudice to the general public?

1. The legislation sets out timeframes in which to lodge objections and the public would reasonably expect that these are observed. However, the legislation also allows for there to be extensions to these timeframes when circumstances warrant.
2. The Tribunal does not consider there is sufficient reason in this case to extend the timeframe for the EOT to be lodged, as the mother chose not to lodge an objection within the 28-day timeframe as she was relying on the income estimate reconciliation process.

Are there merits in reviewing the substantive application?

1. Based on the COA decision, the Tribunal is satisfied that there would be merit in reviewing the substantive application.

1. The CSA notifies parties that they can lodge objections to decisions within 28 days. The statutory time limit of 28 days should be enforced unless there are acceptable reasons for the delay.
2. Given the time that elapsed between the date of the original decision and the lodgement of the objection - more than nine months - and that the mother chose not to lodge an objection within the 28 days, the Tribunal is not satisfied that on balance, it would be fair to grant the EOT.
3. The Tribunal notes that the mother said it was unfair. The Tribunal understood this to be a general reference to the fact of the father being able to underestimate his income, and that during the COA process, the mother submitted financial information as requested but the father failed to do so: that he can use the system to his advantage.

1. The Tribunal gives greatest weight to the mother's evidence as to why she did not lodge her objection within the 28-day timeframe. She chose not to do that at the time for reasons already set out. She rested on her rights. The Tribunal is satisfied that on that basis, the request made in April 2024 for an EOT is to be refused.

[1] There is an exception. Objections do not have to be in writing for care percentage decisions (subsection 80(6) of the R & C Act). The decision relevant to this review is not a care percentage decision but a decision to do with an estimate of income.