Paid Parental Leave work test

I'm confused. I read the eligability guidelines..... says I have to have worked for 10 out of the 13 months prior to the birth of my child. Ok, no problem... I've done that.

I go on to complete my claim, and it's asking me if I've worked for at least 8hrs per week between may 5 2012 and June 1 2013 (my EDD). Couple of questions. How do you accurately answer that when you're a) answering for the future... lol :rolleyes: and b) can't add any other details. Here's my problem. I worked from 10 April 2012 till 13 Feb 2013. Full time. I have that sinking feeling that because I stopped work in Feb and am not having my baby until June I'll somehow not be eligable now?

Please tell me you don't have to work RIGHT up to the end in order to be eligable...... I did the 10 months.

Can anyone clarify? Did that even make sense?

I would say it's because 5 May is 13 months before your edd. April is 14 months before your edd so doesn't fall into the 10 months in the prior 13.

So........................... you're telling me that counting on my fingers is NOT an accurate measurement? :rofl:

It's all a bit confusing because I left work suddenly as my DS was diagnosed with whooping cough, and although I tested negative... became very ill myself. However that's not a pregnancy complication. Or premature birth.

Does that mean I wouldn't be eligable? OH GOD!

:rofl: No, that's how I worked it out! But I got it wrong then realised June-June is 12 months, so you just go one month before to get 13. You've still got some time though, if you can pick up 8 hours a week for a little while?

It says somewhere that as long as no longer than 8 week consecutive break of no work.
I was similar in thinking I wouldn't be able to apply but turns out I only had 5 weeks off between jobs (signing contracts anyway) so have me 3 weeks before EDD before I was cutting it fine.
Or at least that's how I have understood it!
You need a degree to work out anything with centrelink!

Well, that just sucks. The whole month of April I worked isn't going to be considered? Seems unfair.

I can't pick up any work at this stage, who's going to hire a woman at 35 weeks pg? lol. I resigned about 10 weeks ago. So I'm probably officially screwed. Awesome. Thanks again centrelink for your confusing terms and conditions screwing me over yet again!

:hug: Maybe give them a call or go in to see someone and explain your situation?

Damn woman, are you insane? lol

It took me a month to get them to realise I was eligable for parenting payment. 4 phonecalls, 90 minutes on hold each time. Every time I went in to see someone to explain my situation, it was at least an hour of waiting. Only to be told different things each time.

I was told in each of these conversations that yes, I would be eligable. Turns out even the staff don't know their own criteria. I guess the only hope I have is to go back to the office across the border and hope I get to see the lovely woman who sorted out my claim for parenting payment. She was somewhat of an oracle. Now if I could just remember her name.

I HATE dealing with government agencies!

So you were back at work 10 months (almost exactly right?) but looks like the first month well 10th April till 5th May (I wonder why 5th and not 1st?) is not counted - making you under the 10 months within the 13 slightly?

Are there any pregnancy complications you can use as an explanation of why finished up in Feb - I am sure they must have to take that sort of thing into the equation. Can you claim later? If your bub comes a little early then surely you will be very nearly 10 months.

I think the whole 10 out of the previous 13 is odd anyway - went back to work when my DD was about 14 months and worked till 5 weeks before DS was due (at least 22 hours a week) and I didn't quite qualify (over 9 under 10). I wouldn't have thought that, that sort of work pattern was that unusual, and lots of people have even less time between 1 & 2 and still work. The difference between Baby Bonus and FTB B at the time worked out only marginal - but now with the reduction in Baby Bonus for subsequent children from Jul 1st - it makes PPL the better option. It really makes no sense to me that you can work 9 months full time and not get it, but work just 8 hours a week for the 10 months and get it. (In my mind again it is another element of the PPL that is poorly thought out for the current time where working patterns of women are quite different to how they used to be).

almost exactly, yes. It seems that it's not counted because April is 14mths before my due date...... I'm extremely confused now!

That's the thing though, how are you supposed to know when your baby's going to be born? So if I go post-dates I'd be penalised for that by missing out? What?

Back to racking my brains.............

thank you Google!

From April 10 2012 to my EDD June 01 2013 is 59 weeks. Which is 13.57 months. Why they're asking me from the 5th of may is beyond me now.
From April 10 2012 to my end work date of February 13 2013 is 44 weeks. 10.12 Months.

BUT they're asking from May 5.

So, from May 5 2012 to my end work date Feb 13 2013 only works out to be 9.43 months.

Basically I need to be due 2 weeks earlier than I am in order for my first months work to 'count'. :rolleyes:

I completely agree wysiwyg, it's strange that someone working full time for 9 months isn't eligible but someone working 8 hours a week for 10th months is.

Forshelby, I totally get what you mean about the time it takes to see someone, or get your point across on the phone. But I think wysiwyg is right, if you explain you couldn't work due to pregnancy (there was a lot of stress wasn't there?) and how silly it is that you've worked longer than others who are eligible, hopefully someone will see the light.

I hope you can get it sorted out. I don't know about the EDD thing - it seems odd seeing as it can change so much, I just didn't look into it as soon as I realized wouldn't qualify and wouldn't make much odds. I was disappointed though a few months after because I got a phone call to take part in a survey about it but they only wanted to speak to people who were eligible for both - shame because I had a lot of points to make about it. ;-)

I can understand why they have to have some rules, but I really don't think they though it out very fully in terms of the realities of second children in particular and pregnancies, I think 10 months is too long to ask for between pregnancies and also the 13 months is too short (8 months and 16 I think would make more sense). I think if women need to finish work before their due date the decision should be able to be made on health basis not on well I must work to qualify for PPL.

:

---

thank you Google!

From April 10 2012 to my EDD June 01 2013 is 59 weeks. Which is 13.57 months. Why they're asking me from the 5th of may is beyond me now.
From April 10 2012 to my end work date of February 13 2013 is 44 weeks. 10.12 Months.

BUT they're asking from May 5.

So, from May 5 2012 to my end work date Feb 13 2013 only works out to be 9.43 months.

Basically I need to be due 2 weeks earlier than I am in order for my first months work to 'count'. :rolleyes:

---

May 1st I could understand as that is 13 months - but May 5th - yes no idea.

Fair work has a whole section about PPL, have a look there are there is a lot of info. We have a policy on it at work and provide staff with a lot of information about it too so that they know what their entitlements are and what is required.
I don't really see it as Centelink's fault as such (other than not giving you the right info to start with) there are rules in place for a reason otherwise it would be possible fore people to take serious advantage of this system. However I agree that it doesn't seem fair that someone could get some casual work and still be eligible but someone who finish up work earlier but has been full time isn't.

Did you finish early for health reasons? This is one of the exemptions.

Teeki - The problem with that is proof. How do I prove my job was stressful? How do I prove that the boss made it impossible for me to continue with his attitude and unwillingness to understand that my son had fricken whooping cough, and I needed to be there for him? I do have proof that my DS tested positive though.

Wysiwyg - The decision to stop work can be made on a health basis. If there are pregnancy complications or premature birth etc you're covered. But I'm stuck in a grey area. My pregnancy was fine... it was the child already in my care who needed me. I was also tested for whooping cough and tested negative, however was advised to be treated and take time off as well. As a result of me doing this, my boss flipped out and it ended up costing me my job. Long story short he publicly had a HUGE go at me about the time I took off..... as well as being at work while sick with a potentially harmful disease...... he just wasn't getting my point. I took the time to quarantine myself and treat myself, then came back as soon as I was in the clear. I tried to explain that with whooping cough, you don't just make a miraculous recovery. I had a debilitating cough for at least 8 weeks, all the treatment does is make me non-infectious.

I couldn't get that point across to him, he wanted to carry on in front of other staff. On my birthday. I cried, and left the office, he followed and continued to hassle me, and I went home an absolute mess. I was getting so depressed and it was really affecting me. So the next day I resigned without notice. (I was casual)

I hope that rambly story made sense. But seriously, I've had no luck whatsoever in the past with receiving any kind of compassion from centrelink. They are black and white. I am grey. (unfortunately not 50 shades either... who has sex like that anyway???? but I digress..) :rofl:

WWYD? List an earlier EDD? The questions they ask are 'did you work at least 8hrs per week between date x and date y' my answer is no.... because date y is my 'edd' and nobody works up till their last week of pregnancy. Well, very few. So most people would answer no. Then the next question says 'will there be or has there been an 8 week break between working days?' well, my answer is yes. Yes there has been because I resigned. But my point is that I worked 10 months from start to finish, within a 13.5month period before my EDD.

Shouldn't I then qualify?

*head explodes*

Ausgirl - yes and no on the health reasons. see above. I have no proof of my own health though, just the fact that my 2y.o was very ill.

Have you checked how much you would be worse off by getting baby bonus and the family tax benefit?

I would hope that centrelink would take a look at all the facts - I think you will have to speak to them - I mean whatever you put in now won't you have to submit something after the birth - might be easier to get it resolved now.

:

---

Well, that just sucks. The whole month of April I worked isn't going to be considered? Seems unfair.

I can't pick up any work at this stage, who's going to hire a woman at 35 weeks pg? lol. I resigned about 10 weeks ago. So I'm probably officially screwed. Awesome. Thanks again centrelink for your confusing terms and conditions screwing me over yet again!

---

The ten week gap will render you ineligible for ppl, even if you get a job now. You have to have worked en of the 13 months before edd (so may 2012 to June 2013), with no gap exceeding 8 weeks between work days

You can apply, have it rejected and then appeal on the basis of ill health of your son. However you would have to price you were given o alternative but to resign. Unfortunately I think you're going to struggle to do that with the circumstances ou have given here. Don't falsify your edd. Why happens if you go post dates. Or you are asked to provide documentation ir the doctor tht you had o have the period from feb il w off due to the whooping cough and would ate otherwise worked through til 34 weeks? The doctor has to put your edd on the letter and then you can be caught for knowingly making a fraudulent claim which can be prosecuted...

The 13 month period applies to th 13 months IMMEDIATELY before your edd. And does carry qualifications (like no gap exceeding 8 weeks). Most people finish around 34 weeks which means they are essentially saying from the date 13 months before your edd until the date you hit 34 weeks (a period of 11.5 months) did you work for at least ten of those months

:

---

May 1st I could understand as that is 13 months - but May 5th - yes no idea.

---

It's written as "months" for simplicity but its actually calculated on days so that no one s disadvantaged (someone due in march would have two febs in the preceding thirteen months so could be as many as six days less in which to qualify when on pared to someone due in June with two mays in the previous 13 months...)

So it is actually 10 months in the preceding 392 days?

Do you know how many days they use in a month?

E.g.

Is 10 months equal to 300 days?

I have always been vaguely curious as to why I didnt qualify as I thought 10 months but seems was slightly out on days.

I really think these eligibility criteria need to be rexamined - especially in light of the reduction in baby bonus for subsequent children as PPL is meant to be an alternative.

My previous employer for example you had to get a doctors note to confirm you were ok to work past 36 weeks - so it then seems odd to have EDD as the time point for PPL because as I said before people should be able to choose when they finish work based on their health and if they want to rather than needing to squeeze in more days due to PPL. Changing the qualifiying criteria to estimated 36 weeks would help people get in a qualifying period of work between children 1 & 2 for example.

There is a day limit but to be honest odd the top of my head I can't recall what it is.

All I can suggest is to put your feedback through to your local member of parliament. Unfortunately all fao staff can do is answer questions about the current rules - feedback needs to go far higher than us :)

Cheers BG - I will do that - I should have cornered her at my citizenship ceremony :-)