Paid Parental Leave scheme Work Test 007-05020030

If the customer is a…

…then the 392 day (13 month) work test period must be

PPL claimant

before the child's expected or actual date of birth/entry into care

PPL claimant (birth mother) with a dangerous job provision applied

before the day the claimant stopped working in the dangerous job

PPL claimant with exceptional circumstances for PPL

before the day the claimant became the primary carer of the child

If the customer is a …

… then the 295 day (10 month) qualifying period

PPL claimant (including claimants in exceptional circumstances for PPL)

Must be in the past.

If the work test is not met for a pre-birth claim, it may be met once the child is born/enters care. The customer is encouraged to test their eligibility once the work test has been met.

Example

Description

1

Permissible break - work test met. Customer had a gap less than 84 continuous days within the work test period

Michelle gave birth on 13 January 2025. The claim for PPL indicates Michelle has not worked for at least 8 hours every week in the work test period (between 18 December 2023 and 13 January 2025). However, Michelle:

• has worked 389 hours within a 10 month period since 18 December 2023, and
• did not have more than 84 continuous days break between 2 qualifying work days

Michelle had worked in excess of 330 hours in a combined 10 month period since 18 December 2023. Michelle has satisfied the PPL work test.

2

Permissible break within the work test period - work test met. Customer had a gap less than 84 continuous days within the work test period

Louise is expecting to give birth on 13 January 2026.

Louise's 392 day work test period starts on 18 December 2024. Louise did not work on this day.

Louise worked for one day on 1 November 2024 and then worked continuously from 31 December 2024 to 13 October 2025.

To satisfy the work test, Louise needs to establish a qualifying period of 295 consecutive days between:

• the start of the work test period, 18 December 2024, and
• when stopping work on 13 October 2025

As Louise performed qualifying work on 1 November 2024 and on 31 December 2024 and, as the period between these dates was less than 84 days, Louise can be considered to have been on a permissible break between the start of the work test period on 18 December 2024, and the day qualifying work was performed on 31 December 2024.

As a permissible break counts towards the work test, Louise is considered to have worked 300 days between 18 December 2024 and 13 October 2025. Therefore, if the requirement for 330 hours of qualifying work is met, and there are no gaps of more than 84 days between any consecutive working days, Louise would meet the work test. Louise's period of qualifying work performed during the work test period is at least 295 consecutive days.

Louise's hours worked on 1 November 2024 do not count towards the 330 hours required to meet the work test nor the 295 consecutive days, as this day is only to establish that a period within the work test period was a permissible break and to provide some flexibility in circumstances where the customer does not work on the start day of the 13 month work test period.

3

Non-permissible break - work test not met. Customer had unpaid leave for more than 84 days during the work test period that prevented a customer having a 295 day qualifying period within the work test period

Maria has been employed as a casual school teacher for the last 3 years and is expecting to give birth on 10 September 2025.

Maria's work test period is 15 August 2024 to 10 September 2025. On average, Maria works 25 hours per week. Maria was on unpaid leave from 2 May 2025 until starting a new contract on 7 August 2025 (98 days).

Maria has had a break in employment of more than 84 days (12 weeks) within the PPL qualifying period (295 days -approx. 10 months) and it is not a permissible break.

Maria does not meet the work test and is not eligible for PPL. Maria may be entitled to Newborn Supplement (NBS) and Newborn Upfront Payment (NBU) with Family Tax Benefit (FTB).

4

Non-permissible break within the work test - work test not met. Customer had a gap of more than 84 days during the work test period that prevented a customer having a 295 day qualifying period within the work test period

Max started employment with ABCD trading in 2020. Max was employed on a full time basis. On 15 August 2025 Max’s employer ceased trading and their employment was terminated.

Max’s child was born on 7 December 2025.

Max's work test period is 11 November 2024 to 7 December 2025.

From 11 November 2024 to 7 December 2025 Max performed 1482 hours of qualifying work. Max did not find a new job between 15 August 2025 and 7 December 2025.

As Max did not perform qualifying work for the period 15 August to 7 December 2025 (more than 84 days) the break affects their eligibility for PPL. Max does not have a PPL qualifying period of at least 295 consecutive days within the work test period where they performed qualifying work or had a permissible break.

Max does not meet the work test and is not eligible for PPL. Max may be entitled to Newborn Supplement (NBS) and Newborn Upfront Payment (NBU) with Family Tax Benefit (FTB).

5

A non-permissible break - work test met. Customer had a gap of more than 84 days during the work test period but the customer still had a 295 day qualifying period within the work test period

Olivia gave birth on 20 May 2025.

Olivia's 392 day work test period starts on 23 April 2024 (13 months before the baby's date of birth). Olivia stopped employment on 27 April 2024, and started work with another employer on 22 July 2024, a break of more than 84 days.

Olivia then worked every week from 22 July 2024 until 17 May 2025, a period of 300 consecutive days. The break between working days that occurred early in the work test period is not a permissible break as it was a break of more than 84 days. The break does not affect Olivia's eligibility for PPL because there is still a qualifying period of at least 295 consecutive days in the work test period where Olivia performed qualifying work or had a permissible break.

Example

Description

1

No gap in the qualifying period – work test met

Sharlene has a baby on 30 December 2024.

The 13 month work test period is 392 days - 3 December 2023 to 29 December 2024.

Sharlene has been working for several years with ABC Co. Sharlene ceased work on 1 October 2024 and was on unpaid leave from 1 October 2024 until the baby was born.

The qualifying period within the work test period is 295 days (10 months) - 3 December 2023 to 23 September 2024.

Sharlene has worked 330 hours in this period with no gaps of more than 12 weeks (84 days) between 2 qualifying work days.

Sharlene meets the work test for Parental Leave Pay.

Note: although Sharlene has a gap of 89 days where they did not work before the baby was born, this is disregarded as the gap was not within the 10 month qualifying period between 3 December 2023 to 23 September 2024.

See Scenario 1.

2

No continuous gap of more than 84 days - work test met

Jana has a baby on 30 December 2024.

Jana has been employed in various roles for the last several years.

The work test period is 392 days (13 months) - 3 December 2023 to 29 December 2024.

The qualifying period within the work test period is 295 days (10 months) - 3 December 2023 to 23 September 2024.

Jana was working for:

• ABC Pty. Ltd from 1 November 2023 to 31 January 2024
• DEF Pty. Ltd from 20 March 2024 to 07 July 2024, and
• GHI Pty. Ltd. From 21 August 2024 to 21 October 2024

Jana’s has worked more than 330 hours in the qualifying period.

Gaps in work are:

• 1 February 2024 to 19 March 2024 (48 days), and
• 7 July 2024 to 20 August 2024 (45 days)

This is a total of 93 days. While this is more than 84 days total, Jana can still meet the work test for Parental Leave Pay as there is no continuous gap of more than 84 days.

See Scenario 2.

3

Gap in qualifying period more than 84 days - work test not met

Joanne has a baby on 30 December 2024.

The work test period is 392 days (13 months) - 3 December 2023 to 29 December 2024.

Joanne:

• was working at XYZ Pty Ltd between 1 Jan 2023 and 20 December 2023
• starts a new job at UVW Pty Ltd on 28 March 2024 and continues until the baby is born

Although Joanne works more than 330 hours, there is a gap of 97 consecutive days between working days (a non-permissible break) when Joanne changed jobs.

Joanne does not have a 295 day (10 month) qualifying period at any time in the 392 days (13 month) work test period.

Joanne does not meet the work test for PPL.

See Scenario 3.

4

Deemed ‘qualifying work’ - work test met

Bella has a second child on 30 December 2024.

The work test period is 392 days (13 months) - 3 December 2023 to 29 December 2024.

Bella had been on maternity leave for the first child, receiving Parental Leave Pay, before returning to work for JKL Pty ltd on 4 March 2024.

Bella worked for approx. 6 months with JKL Pty Ltd from 4 March 2024 until 20 September 2024 before deciding to take 30 days of long service. Bella then took unpaid leave from work until the birth of the second child on 30 December 2024.

Although Bella was not at work for the required 295 days (10 months) period, the Parental Leave Pay and paid leave Bella received are both deemed as ‘qualifying work’ for the PPL work test.

Bella’s qualifying period within the work test period is 295 days (10 months) – 3 December 2023 to 23 September 2024. Bella completed 330 hours of work within this period.

Bella meets the work test for Parental Leave Pay.

See Scenario 4.

5

No qualifying period - work test not met

Sheila has a baby on 30 October 2024.

Sheila’s work test period is 392 days (13 months) from 3 October 2023 to 29 October 2024.

Sheila was unemployed for 4 and a half months during the PPL work test period. Sheila commenced working on 22 February 2024.

Sheila has not had any unpaid leave since commencing employment.

Although Sheila has not had any periods of unpaid leave during the 252 days of employment with Cobbs Pty Ltd, Sheila doesn’t meet the PPL work test as there is not a qualifying period within the work test period of 295 days (10 months).

See Scenario 5.

Example

Description

1

Employed by partners business for 'non cash benefit' – work test not met

Elsa worked for partner John's fencing business, ordering materials and booking appointments. Elsa did not receive a paid wage. Elsa claimed PPL, advising:

• Elsa worked 8 hours per week every week in the PPL work test period, and
• Elsa's income for the relevant financial year was $0

The Service Officer called Elsa to discuss the income details provided. Elsa told the Service Officer that in return for the work performed, John paid for the:

• accommodation
• groceries
• car
• petrol, and
• a mobile phone

As Elsa is employed by John's business, the benefits received by Elsa would likely have been provided to Elsa normally as part of the family/domestic relationship.

As this is the only work that Elsa completed in the work test period and Elsa cannot provide any evidence to prove these non-cash benefits would not have otherwise been paid, Elsa does not meet the work test.

2

Employed by partners business for wages – work test met

Salleen performed unpaid work as a bookkeeper for partner's accountancy business.

Salleen provided a signed letter from partner, James, on their business letterhead advising:

Salleen has been responsible for the running of our family business for the past 5 years. Salleen's workload is spread across the working week and at a minimum would be 2 full days per week. Over 10 months, Salleen has worked a minimum of 622 hours.'

Salleen advised that by working for James' business Salleen received wages to the amount of $15000 per annum.

As Salleen is employed by James, and the income received is below the tax free threshold, Salleen hasn’t lodged an income tax return.

Saleen’s is requested to provide their payment summary. Saleen’s payment summary confirms that they received a taxable income of $15000 and that this is in line with the national minimum wage.

Salleen meets to the work test.

3

Employed by parents’ business – work test met

Lilly has worked for their parent's clothing store for the last 10 years. Lilly works 20 hours per week, every week and receives remuneration in the form of clothes in return for the work hours performed.

Lilly provided a letter from their parents on company letterhead of the financial arrangement.

It is reasonable that Lilly would not have received this non-cash benefit had Lilly not performed the work. Lilly meets the work test.

4

Working for partners business and not receiving an income or other financial reward for the work – work test not met

Casey works 2 days per week for Casey's partner's plumbing business. Casey does the administrative and ordering, but does not receive a salary or any financial benefits from this work.

Casey has lodged a PPL claim and has not declared any income for ISP payment. Casey is asked to provide evidence that the work test is met. Casey has worked at least 8 hours each week and although Casey does not receive any income for the work performed for the business, it means that they do not have to pay someone to do the work.

Casey does not meet the work test.

If a person is doing work for a family business and the benefit is not having to employ someone else, this is a benefit for the business, not for the person performing the work. In order to count as qualifying work the person must show that they are receiving a tangible benefit that is in kind for the work being performed and would not otherwise be received.

Example

Description

1

Paid leave – work test met

Paid leave such as annual leave, personal leave, long service leave count as qualifying work.

On 18 September 2024, Danielle gave birth and started paid maternity leave, long service leave and recreational leave from work. Danielle returned to work full time on 9 April 2025.

Danielle is expecting to give birth to another child on 20 October 2025. Danielle's work test period for the expected child is 23 September 2024 to 19 October 2025 (392 days from the expected date of birth).

The time Danielle was absent from work while on paid leave during the work test period counts towards the work test. Danielle should include having worked 8 hours every week for this period of paid leave when completing the claim for the newborn child.

2

Previous periods of PPL in the customer's work test/qualifying period – work test met

Previous periods of PPL in the customer's work test/qualifying period are treated as qualifying work and should not be considered as a permissible or non-permissible break.

Kim and Brad had their first child, Kate, on 14 July 2024. PPL was paid for Kate each weekday from 14 July 2024 through to 16 November 2024. Kim returned to work on 11 January 2025.

In March 2025, Kim and Brad find out they are expecting their second child, with a due date of 22 October 2025.

Kim lodges a pre-birth claim for PPL on 10 October 2025. Kim's PPL work test period for Kim's second child is 26 September 2024 to 21 October 2025 (13 months or 392 days). In the pre-birth claim, Kim advised of stopping work on 22 August 2025. Kim did not perform 8 hours of qualifying work every week during the PPL work test period. Evidence was requested and payslips were provided by Kim.

The payslips confirm Kim completed on average, 6 hours per week paid work from 11 January 2025 to 22 August 2025. As Kim's previous PPL falls within the current PPL work test, some of these days can be included when determining if Kim meets the hours for the current PPL Work Test.

The Service Officer determines Kim's 10 month (295 days) qualifying period to be 26 September 2024 to 17 July 2025. By using this period, the Service Officer can include Kim's previous PPL days paid from 26 September 2024 - 16 November 2024, (277.5 hours). These hours, added with Kim's paid work within the qualifying period, exceed the 330 hours work required to meet the PPL work test for the expected child.

3

Self employed in a business operating at a loss or nil income – work test met

Candace owns and runs a boutique brow and beauty salon, ‘Evoque Brows’, and operates from a room that adjoins a garage at home.

Candace started the business in January 2024 and has been working up to 5 hours a day 5 days a week, Tuesday through to Saturday.

Candace has lodged a pre-birth claim for PPL with an expected date of birth (EDOB) 1 November 2025. Candace’s 392 day work test period starts on 6 October 2024.

In the claim Candace has indicated:

• working 8 hours a week every week during the work test period, and
• a 2024-2025 taxable income of $0

As Candace’s income was nil, the Service Officer asked Candace to provide evidence of that income before submitting the claim. Candace uploaded a profit and loss statement for the period 1 July to 30 September 2025 of $0.

Although Candace’s net income was nil, the profit and loss statement showed Candace performing gainful activity in the business. This evidence supported Candace’s claim of meeting work test.

Note: if suitable evidence wasn’t provided, it would be appropriate to request additional evidence to confirm the PPL Work Test was met.

See:

• Information requests for FTB and PPL claims, and
• Add Newborn and PPL change of circumstances activities
• See also the Process page > Table 1 > Step 2.

4

Allowances only paid for work performed is not treated as qualifying work – work test not met

Sam is employed by the Australian Defence Force as an Instructor of Cadets. Even though Sam is paid an allowance for the work, Sam's employer deems Sam's work as voluntary work.

Because Sam's work is in the nature of volunteering, it does not constitute paid work even if financially rewarded. Although Sam has invested time and energy into the role as an Instructor of Cadets and has been paid an allowance, the activity cannot be counted towards the work test.

5

Income support recipient with little or no income details recorded claims PPL and indicates they have met the work test

Laura has indicated in the PPL claim that the work test has been met. Laura's record indicates an ISP was received during the qualifying period and there is insufficient income recorded.

It would be appropriate to request evidence to confirm Laura met the PPL Work Test.

Other instances where it would be appropriate to request evidence the customer meets the PPL work test:

• the customer was receiving an ISP during the qualifying period, where insufficient income or self-employment information has been recorded on the ISP customer's record for the qualifying period, or
• there is reason to believe the customer is not eligible for PPL. For example they are:
• a contractor or casual employee and submit a pre-birth claim more than 12 weeks before their child's EDOB, and they indicate they are not working
• not self-employed, and have a low PPL income estimate (less than $8,000)
• working for their partner or another family member and are not working for financial gain

Criteria

Description

Criteria 1

Customer has a complication or illness directly related to this pregnancy

The customer:

• is experiencing a complication/illness directly related to this pregnancy, for example a low lying placenta, pelvic girdle pain, or
• had a complication or illness before their pregnancy, and this complication or illness was made worse by the pregnancy, for example the customer had lower back pain before becoming pregnant and this illness is now exacerbated by the pregnancy

This criteria is not met where the customer is suffering from a complication/illness not specifically related to the pregnancy such as stress and anxiety caused by caring for a sick family member or bullying in the workplace.

Note: stress and anxiety related directly to the pregnancy may satisfy this criteria, for example, the customer has had previous miscarriages which has caused anxiety and stress and this has resulted in the customer having to stop work or take an extended period of time off work based on medical advice.

Criteria 2

The complication or illness that was directly related to the pregnancy, prevents or prevented the person from performing their current paid work

This is met if the customer is/was prevented from performing their current paid work due to the pregnancy related illness or complication and no other job alternative can be provided by the employer, the customer does not have to be prevented from performing any paid work.

For example, a person may be prevented from performing their current job as a process worker in a factory and their employer is unable to provide a safe job alternative. This person would satisfy this criteria even if there was a possibility that they could work in a different job such as an office job.

Note: this does not include customers who are prevented from working due to a dangerous occupations such as jockeys, x-ray consultants. The inability to perform their current work must be as a result of the pregnancy-related complication/illness.

Criteria 3

The Service Officer is satisfied the customer would have met the work test under section 32A of the PPL act 2010, had it not been for the pregnancy-related complication or illness that prevented them from performing their current paid work

This requires the Service Officer to establish that the customer would have been working and would have satisfied the work test had it not been for the pregnancy related illness or complication.

Examples

• A permanent worker who was working full time for several years before they became pregnant was required to stop working in their current job because they were suffering from pregnancy-induced high blood pressure and they needed to rest
• A full time worker with a consistent work history is no longer employed due to the employer's business closing down. Before losing employment, the employee was diagnosed with a pregnancy-related illness that prevented them from working. Based on the strong connection to the workforce, it is reasonable to conclude that if not for the pregnancy-related illness, they would have regained employment to satisfy the work test

Example

Description

1

Pregnancy-related complication prevented the customer working for an extended period at the beginning of the pregnancy

Jo had a history of miscarriages during the first trimester of pregnancy. When Jo became pregnant again, the doctor advised taking a period of leave from employment. Jo followed the doctor's advice and took leave without pay from the full-time job of 6 years to minimise the possibility of another miscarriage.

After 99 days of leave without pay, Jo returned to work full-time. Despite working in excess of 330 hours of qualifying work, Jo had a break of greater than 84 consecutive days (equivalent to 12 weeks) between 2 qualifying work days. As a result, Jo had a non-permissible break and did not satisfy the normal work test.

However, a medical certificate was provided, confirming Jo was unfit for work due to complications with the pregnancy. Jo's employer also advised that Jo would have worked during the period had it not been for the risk to the pregnancy. As a result, Jo has met the work test when the evidence of the complications with the pregnancy were considered.

2

Pregnancy-related complication prevented customer working for more than a couple of months within the work test period

During pregnancy Jean developed severe vomiting and nausea that prevented Jean from working as a casual teacher. Jean's doctor advised Jean to take a period of leave from employment. Due to being unwell, Jean followed the doctor's advice and took leave without pay from Jean's casual job of 3 years.

As Jean's condition did not improve, Jean did not return to work and therefore had only performed 85 days of qualifying work during the work test period. Jean had a break of greater than 84 consecutive days (equivalent to 12 weeks) between 2 qualifying work days. As a result, Jean had a non-permissible break and did not satisfy the normal work test.

Jean was asked to and provided a letter from Jean's medical practitioner that confirmed Jean was unfit for work due to excessive vomiting and dehydration as a result of the pregnancy.

Jean was also asked to provide evidence from the employer to confirm Jean would have worked during the work test period had it not been for the pregnancy related illness. Jean contacted the agency to advise that the employer has refused to provide the evidence.

The Service Officer contacted Jean’s employer. They advised that Jean was a casual teacher who worked under a contract. They also advised that Jean’s contract was not being extended. As a result, Jean's application was rejected, as the service Officer wasn’t satisfied that Jean would have worked the required time had it not been for the pregnancy related illness.

Note: customers will generally be asked to provide this evidence as part of their claim.

If they cannot provide sufficient detail within the claim, Service Officers may be able to contact the employer at the request of the customer. Information can be obtained verbally if customers cannot get evidence in writing.

3

Insufficient medical evidence to verify a pregnancy related complication

Penny was expecting a baby on 15 May.

During the PPL work test period Penny was working full time in a job that required Penny to stand for long periods of time and involved some heavy lifting.

Due to standing for long periods of time, Penny experienced back, leg and hand pain, which seemed to get worse as the pregnancy progressed.

As a result, Penny decided to start maternity leave earlier than expected. Penny stopped work on 11 January.

As Penny had a non-permissible break of more than 84 consecutive days (equivalent to 12 weeks) between 2 qualifying workdays, the normal work test was not satisfied.

Penny provided medical evidence from a doctor which listed the reasons why Penny finished work earlier than expected. However, the medical evidence did not state that the complication/illness was exacerbated by pregnancy, and prevented Penny from working.

A letter from Penny's employer was also provided saying that Penny would have worked for the period had it not been for the complication/illness.

As the medical evidence did not state that Penny was unfit for work due to the complication/illness being exacerbated by the pregnancy, the agency could not be satisfied Penny met section 36A.

If Penny was to provide additional medical evidence that confirms the complication/illness was exacerbated by the pregnancy, which prevented Penny working, the agency could reassess Penny's claim.

Example

Description

1

Customers with industry regulations to prevent them working when pregnant

Vicki is a self-employed professional boxer. After learning of the pregnancy, Vicki was required to stop working immediately due to the hazards the job presented to the pregnancy, and in accordance with the industry's regulations. Vicki's last day at work was 5 December 2023.

The expected date of birth of Vicki's baby is 5 July 2025. On 20 May 2025, Vicki lodged a pre-birth claim for PPL. The initial work test period for the claim is from 9 June 2024 to 5 July 2025. Vicki will not meet the work test, as there is more than a 12 week continuous gap between 2 work days in the work test period.

Vicki indicated in the claim that Vicki was required to stop working in a dangerous job. The work test period was moved to an earlier period. Vicki's new work test period is 8 November 2023 (392 days before the date Vicki stopped work) to 4 December 2024.

Vicki provided:

• a full job description in a statutory declaration to confirm self-employment as a professional boxer, and
• the industry regulations that state boxers are not permitted to work while pregnant

As Vicki has provided the required evidence to support having to stop work due to the risk to the pregnancy of Vicki's profession, Vicki was deemed to meet the dangerous job provision.

Vicki advised of completing 8 hours work every week in the new work test period and subsequently was assessed as meeting the PPL work test.

2

Workplace agreement prevented customer working while pregnant. Customer found new job but failed usual work test. Dangerous job provision can still be applied.

Mandy was employed as an underground miner. On 5 May 2025, Mandy advised the employer Mandy was 9 weeks pregnant. Under their employee's workplace agreement, Mandy had to stop work immediately. Mandy's last day of work was 5 May 2025.

Mandy started a new casual job in a local supermarket with a new employer on 25 August 2025. Mandy's last day of work with this employer was 6 November 2025.

Mandy had lodged a pre-birth claim for PPL and advised the baby's expected date of birth is 8 December 2025, and the work test period is 12 November 2024 to 8 December 2025. Mandy does not meet the work test as there was more than a consecutive 12 week gap between 2 work days in the work test period (5 May 2025 to 25 August 2025 - a total of 112 day continuous gap).

Although Mandy started work with a new employer, Mandy can still meet the PPL work test under the dangerous job provision for this pregnancy. Mandy will need to provide evidence from the employer that Mandy stopped work due to the hazards that presented a risk to the pregnancy and a doctor supports these claims.

Mandy provided:

• proof from the employer confirming employment as an underground miner, working with explosives and a copy of their workplace agreement, and
• a letter from a doctor to support the claim for the dangerous job provision to be applied

Mandy met the Dangerous Job provision and the work test period was moved to the 13 month period before the date Mandy stopped work as a miner, 9 April 2024 to 5 May 2025. Mandy still needs to meet the work test in the new work test period.

3

Customer decided their job was too hazardous to continue, no workplace or industry requirement to indicate the dangerous job provision applies

Taylah started working on 20 January 2024 as a housekeeper at a mine in Perth WA. On 5 August 2024, Taylah advised the employer that Taylah was pregnant. Taylah stopped working on 29 August 2024.

Taylah lodged a pre-birth claim for PPL and advised the expected date of birth was 20 January 2025. Taylah provided proof confirming employment as a housekeeper and that Taylah stopped employment on the 29 August. Taylah's employer stated in letter that because of high temperatures it was no longer appropriate or safe to continue working.

Taylah does not meet the Dangerous Job provision. Taylah did not provide sufficient proof that the work hazards (high temperatures) posed a risk to the pregnancy. A statement from Taylah's employer (who is not a medical professional) was not sufficient evidence of risk. The evidence Taylah provided does not support the claim for a Dangerous Job provision.

Example

Description

1

Provides acceptable evidence for both illness and that sufficient hours of work would have been completed in the work test period

Kristy has worked full-time in hospitality for 5 years. In October 2022, Kristy is diagnosed with heart failure and takes 6 months off work to recover and rehabilitate.

Kristy becomes pregnant in February 2023 and returns to work part-time in April 2023. The child is born on 29 October 2023.

Kristy’s work test period is between 3 October 2022 and 29 October 2023. Kristy did not work or have a permissible break for at least 295 consecutive days in the work test period. This means Kristy does not meet the usual work test.

However, Kristy provides:

• evidence from their doctor explaining the medical condition and how it prevented Kristy from performing paid work during the work test period, and
• a letter from their employer stating that, if not for the illness, Kirsty would have kept working during those 6 months

Finally, Kristy had returned to work after rehabilitating.

These pieces of evidence show Kristy would meet the work test were it not for Kirsty’s severe medical condition.

2

Provides acceptable evidence for both illness and that sufficient hours of work would have been completed in the work test period

Riley has worked casually for 3 years. Over the last year, Riley’s work becomes irregular because of a mental health condition.

In January 2023, Riley provides a medical certificate stating Riley is unable to work regularly due to a mental health condition. During this time, Riley works only when able to.

Riley gives birth in January 2024. Riley has not worked – or had a permissible break – for at least 295 consecutive days in the work test period. This means Riley does not meet the usual work test.

Riley provides evidence from a doctor verifying that their mental health condition has prevented Riley from working regular hours. Riley also provides employer evidence stating that Riley:

• worked regular hours before the mental health condition had become more severe, and
• would have otherwise worked those hours if the condition were not as severe

Together this evidence satisfies the decision maker that Riley:

• has been affected by a severe medical condition that prevented them from performing paid work, and
• would have met the work test were it not for the mental health condition

3

Provides acceptable evidence for both injury and that sufficient hours of work would have been completed in the work test period

Eden has worked full-time as a barista for 5 years before being injured on a ski holiday in February 2022. The injuries are serious and require long-term rehabilitation.

Eden takes 6 months of sick leave, followed by another 6 months of unpaid leave, and returns to work in February 2023, working 2 days a week to fit in with the ongoing rehabilitation. Eden’s employer agrees Eden will resume the full-time role once recovered.

On 1 July 2023, Eden gives birth. The work test period is from 4 June 2022 to 1 July 2023. Eden has not worked enough consecutive days of qualifying work during this time to meet the usual work test. However, Eden provides:

• medical evidence of the injuries and their impact
• an employer letter confirming Eden worked full-time until the injury and returned to work on a shared understanding that Eden would gradually resume full-time hours as rehabilitation progressed

This evidence shows that a serious medical condition prevented Eden from working and that Eden would have met the work test if not for that injury. Eden therefore meets the work test under the special circumstances provisions.

4

Acceptable evidence not provided to confirm sufficient hours in the work test period would have been completed

Lucy returns to Australia in January 2021 after working overseas as a tattoo artist. Seeking a career change, Lucy begins:

• a 4-year full time bachelor’s degree at a local university, and
• working at a tattoo studio a few hours each week on a casual basis to supplement student payments

After studying for a year, Lucy’s parent becomes ill and requires full time care. Lucy cares for them while studying part-time and continuing to work casually.

Lucy gives birth on 14 December 2024. The work test period is from 18 November 2023 to 14 December 2024. Despite working, Lucy has not worked enough hours of qualifying work to meet the usual work test.

Lucy provides medical evidence from a doctor confirming lucy’s parent’s condition and their need for ongoing care, and that Lucy has been the primary carer. The decision maker is satisfied that Lucy’s circumstances meet the criteria for a special circumstance because of the medical condition and Lusy’s caring role.

Lucy also submits a letter from the tattoo studio confirming the casual work arrangement, including the number of hours Lucy worked per week.

The decision maker is not satisfied that Lucy would have met the work test had Lucy not been caring for their parent. This is because Lucy’s work before being a carer was limited and there is no logically probative evidence which shows that this pattern of work would have changed but for the special circumstances.

As a result, Lucy is not eligible for PPL for this child. Lucy claims, is found to be eligible for, and receives FTB, including NBS and NBU.

5

Contact with employer confirmed employment and position became redundant before the work test period was completed

Johanna applies for PPL with an expected birth date of 20 June 2025. Johanna states that the work test cannot be met, because Johanna has been providing full-time care for a parent, who has dementia, for the past 4 years.

As part of the claim, Johanna provides a letter from their parent’s doctor confirming:

• the diagnosis,
• their need for full-time care, and
• Johanna’s role as primary carer

Johanna also includes a letter from their previous employer stating Johanna:

• worked full-time until resigning to become a carer, and
• would have remained employed during the work test period if not for the caring responsibilities

The decision maker accepts the medical evidence as supporting special circumstances. However, due to the time since Johanna last worked and the limited detail in the employer’s letter, more information is requested from the employer to confirm Johanna would still have been employed during that 4-year period.

The employer responds noting that the position Johanna had previously held had been made redundant and that it is more likely Joanna would not have remained employed. Johanna is unable to provide additional evidence. Joanna’s PPL claim is rejected due to not satisfying the work test.

After the child is born, Johanna continues to receive CP and CA, and also begins receiving FTB, including the NBS and NBU.

6

Employer ceased trading before the work test period was completed

Camille has worked at a steelworks for 15 years. The steelworks is the only one in town and is key to its economy. Camille has a strong personal attachment to both the town and steelworks.

In February 2018, Camille sustains serious injuries in a car accident. Following this, Camille takes 6 months paid sick leave followed by 6 months unpaid leave.

Camille’s employment ends in January 2019, and their doctor advises Camille is unlikely to return to work.

Camille gives birth in April 2024. The work test period is from 19 March 2023 to 14 April 2024.

Camille:

• has not performed any qualifying work within the work test period so does not meet the usual work test
• provides medical evidence from their doctor showing injuries have prevented Camille from working

To support the claim for a work test exemption, Camille provides a previously obtained letter from the steelworks stating Camille would have remained employed if not for the injuries.

However, just before Camille’s work test period, the steelworks closed. This event was publicised nationally.

The decision maker is aware of the closure and its impacts and assesses that, had Camille continued to be employed at the steelworks if not for the injuries as the evidence states, Camille would not have been employed during the work test period as the closure was sudden and most residents have remained unemployed while a bailout package is negotiated.

While Camille’s injuries have clearly been a barrier to work, the evidence does not establish that Camille would have remained employed given the profound changes to the local economy and Camille’s enduring connection to the area.

The decision maker determines that Camille does not meet the criteria for a work test exemption and is not eligible for PLP under the special circumstances provisions.

7

No evidence provided to show work test would have been met if not for the medical condition

Jeremiah was injured in an accident in January 2018 that prevents them returning to work. Jeremiah receives DSP and has not been in paid employment since the accident.

Jeremiah adopts a child in May 2024. Jeremiah does not meet the usual work test but knows that exemptions are available for severe medical conditions.

Jeremiah provides evidence from their doctor saying that Jeremiah’s injuries prevented them from working during the work test period. However, Jeremiah is not able to provide any other evidence that they would have met the work test if not for the condition. The doctor’s evidence only shows the condition prevented Jeremiah working, not that Jeremiah would have worked otherwise.

The decision maker decides Jeremiah is not eligible for PLP. Jeremiah can receive FTB, including the NBS and NBU, along with the DSP. These payments begin in May 2024.

8

Compensation/Strained workplace relationship

In August 2024, Jane contracts COVID-19 while working as a doctor and develops chronic fatigue. This prevents Jane from continuing work and they eventually lose their job. Jane is unable to meet the usual work test.

Jane successfully lodges a compensation claim against their employer, but the employer disputes liability, resulting in the two developing a strained relationship.

When completing the PPL claim, Jane indicates potential eligiblity for a work test exemption due to special circumstances and is required to attach evidence.

Jane:

• provides a medical certificate confirming the condition and its impact on Jane’s ability to work during the work test period
• is unable to get a supporting letter from their employer due to the strained relationship

Jane contacts Centrelink and provides payslips as alternative evidence. The payslips show a consistent work pattern from February to August 2024, followed by reduced hours and extensive sick leave. Jane also provides a copy of their employment contract, which outlines Jane’s full-time role and expected ongoing employment prior to the illness.

This combined evidence satisfies the decision maker that Jane has been affected by special circumstances and would have met the work test if not for the illness. Based on the medical certificate, payslips, and employment contract, Jane is granted a work test exemption, and the PPL claim is approved.

Exception reason

Evidence of exception

Evidence that customer would have met the work test had it not been for the exception reason

Pregnancy related complication or illness

Medical evidence is required from a doctor stating:

• what the complication is
• that it is a direct result of the pregnancy or for a pre-existing condition or illness that is exacerbated as a result of this pregnancy

The doctor also needs to state that the complication/illness prevents the person from performing their current paid work.

If the customer does not satisfy all the above, they do not meet the requirements of 36A and do not meet the PPL Work Test.

The evidence must confirm that the customer would have met the work test if the pregnancy related complication/illness had not existed. That is, the customer would have:

• completed 330 hours of qualifying work during the work test period
• worked for 295 consecutive days during the work test period or had a permissible break

An example of an acceptable form of evidence of this is a letter from the customer’s employer (or former employer) confirming:

• the customer was working before the onset of the pregnancy related complication/illness
• a number and pattern of hours worked by the customer that would have likely met the work test at the time, and
• whether the work pattern indicated for the customer, was expected to continue during the work test period if not for the pregnancy related complication/illness

Dangerous Job

Evidence is required to confirm they stopped working because of hazards connected with the work which posed a risk to their pregnancy. This can include:

• a medical certificate
• a letter from their employer, or
• a copy of their Industry regulations or guidelines that confirm that they are unable to continue working due to the hazardous nature of their job

Evidence must confirm before their child was born they worked in a particular job and would have continued to work in that job had they not become pregnant. This can include:

• a letter from their employer
• a copy of their contract/workplace agreement, or

Special circumstances

Types of appropriate evidence a customer can provide depends on their situation. Evidence will carry greater weight if that evidence is relevant to a situation of special circumstances and from a reputable source. Examples include:

• a medical certificate
• a letter from a treating doctor
• a letter from an employer
• a letter from a social worker or another allied health professional

The evidence should:

• explain the customer’s circumstances
• link those circumstances to one of the criteria in the PPL Rules
• link those circumstances to the customer not being able to do paid work

Evidence is required that confirms the customer would have met the work test if the special circumstances had not existed. That is, without the special circumstances, the customer would have:

• completed 330 hours of qualifying work during the work test period
• worked for 295 consecutive days during the work test period or had a permissible break

An example of an acceptable form of evidence of this is a letter from the customer’s employer (or former employer) confirming:

• the customer was working before the special circumstances began
• a number and pattern of hours worked by the customer that would have likely met the work test at the time, and
• whether the work pattern indicated for the customer, was expected to continue during the work test period if not for the special circumstances.

Note: evidence showing a clear pattern of work that would have met the work test had it continued can be compelling and readily available, but is not a requirement for a decision maker to be satisfied that a customer would have met the work test if the special circumstances had not existed. An example of alternative evidence might be communication from an employer that the customer was to begin full time work at a future date in a situation where the work ultimately did not eventuate due to the special circumstance.

Natural disaster

If the customer has indicated they have an exception to the work test due to a natural disaster, staff must check if the disaster has been listed on the Disaster Assist website. Go to Disaster Assist > Find a disaster > Australian disasters.

Do not include disaster types of influenza, other or terrorist act.

If the disaster is:

• listed, it has been declared by the Commonwealth, a State or Territory. It does not matter:
• if the disaster qualifies for the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment, or Disaster Recovery Allowance, or
• what the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements are
• not listed, however the Service Officer believes it is a declared natural disaster, refer the case to Level 2 Policy Helpdesk for confirmation

Referral link to the Level 2 Policy Helpdesk for complex PPL cases.

• Level 2 Policy Helpdesk online query form

Evidence showing a clear pattern of work that would have met the work test had it not been for the natural disaster. This may include:

• payslips
• letter from the employer

An example of alternative evidence might be communication from an employer that the customer was to begin full time work at a future date in a situation where the work ultimately did not eventuate due to the disaster.