Is there a standard progress claim template?

No. There is no statutory progress claim template, in Australia or in New Zealand. No Security of Payment act, and not the Construction Contracts Act 2002, sets out a form, and there is no schedule at the back of any of them with boxes to fill in.

What the acts prescribe is content. A document carrying the required content is a payment claim whatever it looks like, and a well laid out template missing one line of it is not a payment claim at all, so none of the statutory consequences attach to it. The useful version of the question is therefore what has to be on the page, which is the rest of this page.

If you are here because your contract says "progress claim" and the legislation says "payment claim", progress claims and payment claims is the pillar this page sits under, and it explains why both words are correct.

The header block

Everything here exists so a reader can tell which claim this is and which contract it belongs to without opening a file.

• Your details and the respondent's, as the parties are named in the subcontract rather than as anyone is known on site. A claim addressed to a trading name that is not the contracting entity is a claim served on the wrong party.
• The contract, by its own reference: the subcontract number, the purchase order, the project name. Whatever the other side's system keys on.
• A claim number, running sequentially for that contract. Claim 07, not "August".
• The claim period, as dates rather than a month name. "1 to 31 August 2026" reads the same to everyone; "August claim" does not, on a contract whose period runs to the 25th.
• The reference date the claim is made for, which is what decides whether you were entitled to serve at all. See reference dates and claim periods.
• The date of service, added when the document actually goes, because every deadline that follows counts from it rather than from the date printed on the front. Serving it is a separate act from writing it.

The line items

This is the part generic templates get structurally wrong.

A progress claim is cumulative. Each line states the total value of that item completed since the contract began, not the value completed this month, and what is payable this period is that running total less what has already been certified. A template with a single "amount this claim" column and nowhere to carry the previous position forward produces arithmetic nobody can reconcile against the last certificate, which is the fastest way to have a claim held up.

The columns that make it reconcile:

• Item, described the way the contract's scope or schedule of rates describes it. Claiming against a private breakdown forces whoever assesses it to do a mapping exercise before they can agree with anything.
• Contract value for that item as it currently stands, including approved variations.
• Previously claimed and previously certified, which are two different numbers and worth showing separately when they differ.
• Total completed to date, as a value or as a percentage of the contract value.
• This claim, being the total completed to date less what has already been certified.

Variations belong on the claim, in their own section, each with its own approval reference. An approved variation is claimable scope. An unapproved one folded quietly into a base line is the most common reason a claim is reduced without discussion, because the assessor cannot find it in the contract.

Because claims are cumulative, work reduced or rejected in an earlier period can generally be claimed again in this one. That is a property of the structure rather than cheek: claims are cumulative.

Retention, and where it sits

Retention comes off the claimed value before GST. A line claimed at $10,000 with $500 retention is invoiced as $9,500 plus GST, not $10,000 plus GST less $500.

That ordering is the standard progress claim layout in both countries, and in New Zealand it is the statutory position. Reversing it on a template overstates the GST for the period and understates what is owed. Retention comes off before GST sets out the consequence, which is that GST on retained money is deferred rather than lost.

Retention is also capped. Most contracts stop withholding once the total held reaches a ceiling, so a template that applies the rate to every claim forever keeps withholding past it. How much is withheld has the mechanics, including how variations are treated.

A retention release is its own line, and it carries no retention of its own.

The totals

Down the page: the sum of the line items and approved variations, less retention, less amounts previously certified, giving the amount now claimed excluding GST, then GST, then the total.

It is not a tax invoice, and the document should say so on its face. A claim showing GST is not a tax invoice for that GST, and treating it as one means remitting tax on amounts that may never be certified. Why a payment claim is not a tax invoice explains why the ordering is in the claimant's favour.

Do not net off backcharges yourself. Where the other side believes they have a set-off, it belongs in their payment schedule with a reason attached, which is where they are bound by the reason they gave. Reducing your own claim to pre-empt it gives away the argument and leaves nothing to reconcile against.

The line that makes it a payment claim

Most acts require the document to state, on its face, that it is a payment claim made under the relevant legislation. This is the requirement templates miss and the one that voids claims. A document headed "Progress Claim 07" saying nothing about the act may be a perfectly good claim under the contract while doing nothing under the legislation, which means no statutory reply deadline and no liability for the full claimed amount when the reply never comes.

Queensland prescribes it differently. A claim there must identify the work, state the amount, and request payment (BIF s 68(1)). There is no made-under-the-act endorsement to get wrong, and a request for payment to get right instead.

New Zealand asks for more. Prescribed information must accompany every payment claim: an outline of how the payer responds and what happens if they do not (Construction Contracts Act 2002, s 20(3) and (4), in the form prescribed by the Construction Contracts Regulations 2003). A claim served without it is not compliant, and the omission is invisible on a template built for Australia.

The full list is in what makes a claim valid.

Why a fixed template cannot carry all of this

Three of the things above are not fixed, which is the honest answer to why a downloadable file does not solve the problem.

The statutory wording changes with the jurisdiction. Which act to name, and whether to name one at all, depends on where the contract is, so one template used across a Queensland job and a New South Wales job is wrong on one of them.

The reference date changes with the contract. The earliest day a claim may be served is set by the contract in front of you and the last day is set by the act. Neither is a property of the document, and both are in the timing summary.

The arithmetic changes with what came back. Cumulative claiming only reconciles if this claim's opening position is the last certificate's closing position, which means re-basing the template against the payment schedule every period, by hand, correctly.