CHILD SUPPORT - child support debts - no valid objection lodged - no jurisdiction - various complaints to political and government bodies in Australia and New Zealand - decisions are not reviewable - decision under review dismissed

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 Tambling has lodged numerous applications to the Tribunal, as detailed below. This decision is about whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review any of the decisions that are the subject of his current applications.
2. Table - Summary of Mr Tambling's applications made to the Tribunal:

Decision under review listed in Mr Tambling's application

Child Support Registrar Response to the Tribunal

We advise that no decision has been made under section 87(1) of the Child Support Registration and Collection) Act 1988. There have been no objection decisions made by the agency for the applicant on their cases.

There are no reviewable objection decisions made under section 87(1) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

We advise that no decision was made under Section 87(1) of the Child Support Registration & Collection Act 1988.

We advise that no decision was made under Section 87(1) of the Child Support Registration & Collection Act 1988. There have been no original Child Support or objection decisions were made by the agency for applicant on their cases on the 30 June 2025...

We advise that no decision under section 87(1) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and no original Child Support decision were made by the agency for applicant on their case on the 30 June 2025.

We advise that no decision was made under Section 87(1) of the Child Support

Registration & Collection Act 1988. There have been no original Child Support or

objection decisions were made by the agency for applicant on their case on the 15 May 2025 ...

1. On 6 June 2025, Mr Tambling lodged an application for review of a decision of the Child Support Registrar (Child Support[1]) with the Tribunal.
2. On 11 June 2025 Child Support advised the Tribunal that no objection decisions had been made regarding Mr Tambling.
3. On 12 June 2025 the Tribunal sent letters to Mr Tambling asking him to show why his application for review should not be dismissed considering the 11 June 2025 response from Child Support. Mr Tambling responded the same day with additional details, but no evidence of any objection decision made by Child Support.
4. On 13 June 2025 the Tribunal again wrote to Mr Tambling explaining that the Tribunal could only review objection decisions made by Child Support, confirming that Child Support had advised no objection decisions had been made, and asking for clarification of the decisions he was seeking review of. Mr Tambling responded the same day referring to correspondence he had sent the day prior which he believed outlined the 8 specific decisions he was seeking review of. He also made an additional application the same day in which he said he was seeking review of 7 specific decisions of Child Support.
5. In respect of the applications made by Mr Tambling listed in the above table, Child Support also provided responses on 19 June, 3 July, 29 July and 7 August 2025 confirming that no objection decisions had been made in respect of Mr Tambling.
6. The Tribunal made multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact Mr Tambling by phone to discuss his applications from 28 August to 2 September 2025. On 4 September 2025, the Tribunal sent a letter to Mr Tambling requesting that he contact the Tribunal before close of business on 18 September 2025 to discuss the six applications he had lodged with the Tribunal. If no response was received, the letter stated that the applications would be combined into matter 2025/SC029920 with the later applications cancelled as outlined in the above table, and that the Tribunal would make a single decision under matter number 2025/SC029920 about whether it had jurisdiction to review the decisions it determined he was applying for. No further submissions have been received by the Tribunal from Mr Tambling by the date of this decision.
7. The issue of jurisdiction has been heard on the papers. All written submissions provided by Mr Tambling in support of each of his applications have been considered, along with the information received from Child Support referenced in this decision.

1. The primary statutory provisions relevant to this review are:
   • Sections 80, 87, 89 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Child Support Act)
   • Sections 12 and 97 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.
2. The preliminary issue which arises in this case is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decisions that are the subject of Mr Tambling's combined application.

1. The Tribunal does not have a general power to review any decision, complaint or concern a person has about a government organisation. The Tribunal can only exercise the powers given to it under the relevant statutes. For Child Support matters, those provisions are contained in the Child Support Act. Specifically, an application may be made to the Tribunal for review of a decision listed in section 89 of the Child Support Act. This section includes 'a decision under subsection 87(1) on an objection to a decision (the original decision) of the Registrar'. Subsection 87(1) refers to a decision made by Child Support about an objection. The decisions against which objections that can be lodged are listed in section 80. Not every decision made by Child Support can be objected to, and not every decision made by Child Support can be reviewed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal must be satisfied that the specific decisions Mr Tambling seeks review of in his applications fall within the legal jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
2. Sometimes the Tribunal can review an objection decision that has been 'deemed' to be made by Child Support even though no actual decision has been made by Child Support because Child Support have taken too long to make a decision on an objection that has been validly lodged. Paragraph 87(1)(b) requires Child Support to make a decision on an objection within 60 days of the objection being lodged, and where a party is a resident of a reciprocating jurisdiction, Child Support have 120 days to decide the objection (subsection 87(1A)). If that timeframe passes without Child Support making an objection decision, Child Support can be presumed to have disallowed the objection, and the Tribunal can review that decision. To be satisfied that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a deemed objection decision, the Tribunal requires evidence that a valid objection was lodged with Child Support and that the timeframe to determine it has passed. In this case no such evidence has been received, and so the Tribunal will consider whether any reviewable objection decisions have been made in respect of the matters listed in Mr Tambling's applications.
3. The specific decisions and chief concerns listed in Mr Tambling's correspondence dated 12 and 13 June 2025 are found by the Tribunal to be as follows:
   1. Decision of Child Support to register a New Zealand Inland Revenue (NZIR) child support debt, including the decision to accept it without the claimant's signature.
   2. Decisions of Child Support to issue past Departure Prohibition Orders (DPOs).
   3. Issues relating to Child Support's collection of the debt including the legality of such collection and requests to pay the amount in full despite his financial situation.
   4. Decision of Child Support to garnish debt and late payment penalties (LPP) from Mr Tambling's bank account.
   5. Decision of Child Support and NZIR to refuse to address his 2023 objection to the assessment formulas.
   6. Decision of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to intercept tax refunds and provide them to Child Support.
   7. Issues with the Commonwealth Ombudsman in respect of their manner of investigating complaints against Child Support and the ATO.
   8. Decision of the Inspector General of Taxation to not investigate the ATO and prevent tax refund intercepts by the ATO.
   9. Concerns about how Child Support required Mr Tambling to have contact with them.
4. The Tribunal will address the issue of jurisdiction in relation to each of these decisions.

Decision a: Decision of Child Support to register an NZIR child support debt, including the decision to accept it without the claimant's signature

1. Section 80 of the Child Support Act allows an objection to be made about a decision to register a registrable maintenance liability. A child support debt raised by NZIR can be a registrable maintenance liability. However, as Mr Tambling has provided no evidence of a valid objection made to Child Support about this issue, and Child Support have confirmed no such objection decision can be made, the Tribunal is satisfied that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision.
2. If Mr Tambling makes (or has made) a valid objection under section 80 of the Child Support Act and Child Support fails to make a decision in the legislative timeframe, or if Child Support make an objection decision that Mr Tambling wishes to have reviewed, Mr Tambling can make a new application to the Tribunal in respect of the decision to register the NZIR liability.

Decision b: Decisions of Child Support to issue past DPOs

1. There are some separate provisions in the Child Support Act that allow for limited decisions about DPOs to be reviewed by the Tribunal. Section 72T allows people to make an application to the Tribunal for review of certain decisions made by Child Support under sections 72I (decision to revoke or vary a DPO), 72L (decision to issue a departure authorisation certificate) or 72M (decision about security for return to Australia). There is no review power for a decision to issue a DPO.
2. Child Support provided the following information to the Tribunal on 11 September 2025 in response to the Tribunal's enquiries:

First DPO placed on 02/08/2017 and revoked on 12/11/2019.

Second DPO was placed on 02/06/2022. Initial request to revoke the DPO in November 2022 was refused, however DPO was revoked on 02/02/2023.

Mr Tambling has not been subject to a DPO since 02/02/2023 and there currently no DPO in place.

1. The Tribunal is satisfied there are no decisions to review under the power in section 72T as there are no current DPOs in place as they have all previously been revoked. The Tribunal has no jurisdictions to deal with complaints about the application of previous DPOs.

Decision c: Issues relating to Child Support's collection of the debt including the legality of such collection and requests to pay the amount in full despite his financial situation

1. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction provided in the Child Support Act to review these issues. Child Support have confirmed there is no objection decision that can be reviewed in relation to these concerns.

Decision d: Decision of Child Support to garnish funds from Mr Tambling's bank account

1. This is the same decision that was dealt with in the separate application 2025/SC030231 which was dismissed on 22 September 2025 as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review such a decision. This issue will not be considered further.
2. Mr Tambling also stated that he seeks an order to compel Child Support to refund all moneys seized from his bank account. The Tribunal has no such power and therefore cannot make such an order.

Decision e: Decision of Child Support and NZIR to refuse to address his 2023 objection to the assessment formulas

1. The Child Support Act contains no means by which the NZIR assessment formula can be investigated or recalculated. Only NZIR can determine the amount of their own liability. Child Support only play a role in collecting that liability on request from NZIR when the person liable to pay is in Australia. While Mr Tambling has provided a copy of an objection form which he lodged with NZIR in 2023, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review objection decisions made by NZIR. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review this decision.

Decision f: Decision of the ATO to intercept tax refunds and provide them to Child Support

1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to review 'reviewable objection decisions'. Section 14ZQ of that Act defines reviewable objection decision as 'an objection decision that is not an ineligible income tax remission decision'.
2. Mr Tambling has provided correspondence relating to unsuccessful complaints he has made to or about the ATO regarding their forwarding of his tax returns to Child Support instead of disbursing them directly to him. The Tribunal has not received any evidence from Mr Tambling of a reviewable objection decision made by the ATO that can be reviewed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal therefore does not have jurisdiction to review this decision.

Decision g: Issues with the Commonwealth Ombudsman in respect of their manner of investigating complaints against Child Support and the ATO

1. There is no legislation which gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to review decisions made by the Commonwealth Ombudsman or deal with the issues raised by Mr Tambling in his application regarding the complaint processes of the Ombudsman.

Decision h: Decision of the Inspector General of Taxation to not investigate the ATO and prevent tax refund intercepts by the ATO

1. There is no legislation which gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to review decisions made by the Inspector General of Taxation about their investigation of complaints. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review this decision.

Decision i: Concerns about how Child Support required Mr Tambling to have contact with them

1. The Child Support Act gives no jurisdiction to the Tribunal to deal with such issues. A decision relating to the means of contact is not listed in section 80 of that Act. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review this decision.

1. Mr Tambling has provided various pieces of correspondence to the Tribunal related to his disputes or complaints with NZIR, the ATO, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and various political and government bodies in Australia and New Zealand. However, he has not provided a copy of any valid objection he has made to Child Support in Australia that has been deemed to be refused, or any objection decision made by Child Support.
2. Mr Tambling has raised the issue that a large amount of the garnisheed funds from his account went towards LPP applied by Child Support. If Mr Tambling makes an application for remission of LPP and Child Support refuses that decision, and Mr Tambling objects to Child Support and that objection is disallowed, Mr Tambling can apply to the Tribunal for review of that objection decision.
3. The Tribunal has found no evidence that a reviewable decision has been made in respect of any of Mr Tambling's applications, and therefore dismisses the application for review on the basis that there is no jurisdiction to review the decisions and issues raised by Mr Tambling.
4. If Mr Tambling makes or has made a valid objection under section 80 of the Child Support Act and Child Support fails to make a decision in the legislated timeframes, or if Child Support make an objection decision that Mr Tambling wishes to have reviewed, Mr Tambling can make a new application to the Tribunal and provide a copy of his objection and any objection decision with that application.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the decisions are not reviewable by the Tribunal and dismisses the application for review pursuant to section 97 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.

[1] References to Child Support in this decision are references to Child Support that is part of Services Australia, and not a reference to the Child Support scheme in New Zealand administered by New Zealand Inland Revenue.