Casual income, permanent intent
A hospital worker in Dulwich Hill has been casual for eighteen months, same employer, steady roster, better hourly rate than the permanent staff. A lender told her casuals "basically can't get home loans", which is folklore, not policy. Casual income is assessable at most lenders; the questions are how long, how stable, and how it is averaged.
The situation
Income averages about $92,000 including penalty rates and regular overtime, with an $78,000 deposit saved with family help already documented as a gift. She wants a one-bedroom apartment around $620,000, inside scheme caps, inside her range.
The problem
Casual income triggers extra scrutiny because rosters can vanish without a redundancy process. Lenders answer that risk with tenure rules and averaging: commonly six to twelve months in the role before the income counts, evidenced through year-to-date payslips and the last group certificate. Penalty rates and overtime, half her income, are assessed differently lender to lender, the same policy spread covered in our overtime and allowances guide.
What made it difficult
Averaging method is the whole game. A lender that annualises her year-to-date figure including penalties reads $92,000; one that takes base hours only reads closer to $60,000, same person, same payslips, a difference that decides whether the apartment is affordable. Eighteen months of tenure clears most thresholds, but a two-week unpaid gap over summer needs explaining before an assessor finds it unexplained.
What a broker assesses
The full income history: year-to-date figures, the prior year's certificate, roster consistency, and the summer gap with its ordinary explanation. The lender-by-lender averaging comparison at her actual numbers. Scheme eligibility for the 5% pathway. And the sensitivity test, if the roster genuinely shrank, where does the repayment sit against a realistic reduced income? That answer protects her more than any approval does.
Illustrative sequence, the order and availability depend on the actual file and lender policy at the time.
The lending considerations
Casual lending is mainstream when tenure and consistency are provable, the myth says otherwise because short-tenure casual files genuinely are hard, and the folklore never got updated. The risks worth respecting: income that depends on penalty loadings can move with roster changes, so borrowing to the absolute ceiling is unwise even when a lender allows it. Buying inside a sensible buffer is the real protection.
What borrowers can take from this
If you're casual and being told no: the question is tenure and evidence, not employment label. Keep every payslip, avoid unexplained gaps where you can, and get the averaging compared across lenders before believing any single bank's number. The difference between assessments of the same payslips is routinely the difference between buying and waiting.
Related guides
This is an illustrative example scenario, not a description of a specific client and not a testimonial. The figures are realistic but rounded, no lender is named, and no outcome is promised, every application is assessed on its own facts. General information only, not credit or financial advice.
Casual is not a no.
Twenty minutes with Charles: your income averaged the way the right lenders average it, and your real buying range on the roster you actually work.
Prefer a callback?Charles calls back within one business day. No documents needed yet.
