Who pays what in 482 SID sponsorship costs in 2026?

For an employer sponsoring a worker on the Subclass 482 Skills in Demand (SID) visa, the law decides who pays what. The employment contract does not. The sponsoring business must pay the nomination charge, the Standard Business Sponsorship charge and the Skilling Australians Fund levy, and it cannot lawfully recover any of these from the worker. The visa applicant pays for their own visa application and the personal costs attached to it.

The rule against shifting sponsorship costs onto a sponsored person is a sponsorship obligation in the Migration Regulations 1994, and it is enforced through the Migration Act 1958: a breach can lead to a civil penalty, a bar on sponsoring more people and cancellation of the sponsor’s approval. Below is where the legal line falls, why it is drawn there, and what happens when a sponsor crosses it.

The costs the employer must pay and cannot recover

Three categories of cost sit with the sponsoring business. These are the costs of becoming and acting as a sponsor, and the Migration Regulations 1994 make them the sponsor’s own liability.

The Standard Business Sponsorship charge

Before a business can nominate anyone, it must be an approved sponsor. The application to become a Standard Business Sponsor carries a Department of Home Affairs charge of $420 (as at 5 July 2026, per the Home Affairs cost of sponsoring page). This is a cost of running the sponsorship, so the business pays it and cannot ask the worker to reimburse it.

The nomination charge

Each nominated position carries its own nomination charge. For a 482 SID nomination the charge is a flat $330, whatever the stream or nomination period (as at 25 September 2026, per the Home Affairs cost of sponsoring page). It is paid together with the Skilling Australians Fund levy, discussed next, and it remains a sponsorship cost the business must bear.

The Skilling Australians Fund levy

The Skilling Australians Fund (SAF) levy is the largest single sponsorship cost for most employers, and it is the one sponsors most often try, unlawfully, to shift. The levy is payable by the business at the nomination stage and is calculated on the business’s annual turnover and the nomination period. For a 482 SID nomination it is $1,200 for each year, or part year, of the nomination period where annual turnover is under $10 million, and $1,800 per year otherwise, under section 5 of the Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Regulations 2018 (as at 25 September 2026, per the Home Affairs cost of sponsoring page). A small business nominating for one year therefore pays $1,530 in nomination charge and levy combined; a four-year nomination costs $5,130. Confirm the current figures with the Department before budgeting for a nomination.

The legal point is the allocation rather than the amount. The SAF levy must be paid by the sponsor and cannot be passed on to the sponsored worker in any form. The Regulations name this levy, under its statutory name of nomination training contribution charge, among the costs that cannot be recovered, so arrangements that try to shift it are among the clearest breaches a sponsor can commit.

What the sponsored worker pays

The applicant is responsible for the costs of their own visa. For a 482 SID application the main applicant’s visa application charge is $4,015 (as at 5 July 2026, per the Home Affairs current visa pricing page). The visa application charge for each secondary applicant aged 18 or over is $4,015, and for each applicant under 18 it is $1,005 (both as at 5 July 2026, same source).

Alongside the visa application charge, the applicant normally meets the personal costs that go with lodging: health examinations, police clearance certificates, English language test fees and document translation. These are costs of the worker’s own application rather than costs of the sponsorship, which is why they fall on the applicant. An employer may offer to help with them as a benefit, and doing so breaches nothing. The prohibition runs one way only: it stops the sponsor recovering its own costs from the worker. A worker meeting genuine applicant costs, or an employer choosing to cover them, is outside it.

The legal prohibition: regulation 2.87, and sections 245AR and 245AS

Australian migration law separates sponsor costs from applicant costs on purpose, and it does so in legislation rather than leaving it to policy or contract. Two sets of provisions are involved, and they do different work.

The cost rule itself is a sponsorship obligation in regulation 2.87 of the Migration Regulations 1994. An approved work sponsor must not recover, or seek to recover, from another person the costs associated with becoming or being a sponsor, the costs associated with a nomination, or the costs that relate specifically to recruiting the worker. Migration agent costs are included, and the nomination fee and the nomination training contribution charge are both named. The same regulation prohibits taking any action that would result in those costs being transferred to another person, or in another person paying them to the sponsor.

The obligation is hard to work around because it looks at result rather than form. It reaches direct payment by the worker, wage deductions, “loans” that are really cost recovery, inflated deductions from salary, and reimbursement arrangements described as something else. If the arrangement would result in a sponsorship or nomination cost being transferred to, or paid by, the worker or anyone else, regulation 2.87 applies however the paperwork is labelled.

Sections 245AR and 245AS of the Migration Act 1958 are a separate prohibition, directed at payment for sponsorship. Section 245AR prohibits asking for or receiving a benefit in return for the occurrence of a sponsorship-related event. Section 245AS prohibits offering to provide, or providing, a benefit in return for the occurrence of such an event, so the person who pays is caught as well as the person who is paid. The Act defines a sponsorship-related event to include a person making a nomination and a person employing someone to work in an occupation or position for which a sponsored visa has been granted or applied for, and it defines a benefit to include a payment and a deduction of an amount. Neither section applies to a payment of a reasonable amount for a professional service. An arrangement under which a worker pays the sponsor in return for being nominated can therefore contravene section 245AR as well as the sponsorship obligation.

The costs the sponsor must carry are the costs of becoming and being a sponsor, the costs of nominating a worker, including the SAF levy, and the costs of recruiting the worker. Where there is doubt about whether a particular expense can be allocated to the worker, the safe course is to treat it as the sponsor’s cost, because the consequences of guessing wrong sit entirely with the business.

The consequences of breach

The consequences of getting this wrong fall on the business, and a sponsor who recovers prohibited costs can be exposed on more than one front at once.

First, the civil penalty. Failing to satisfy a sponsorship obligation contravenes section 140Q of the Migration Act, which carries a civil penalty of 240 penalty units for an approved work sponsor. An infringement notice can be issued as an alternative to proceedings for a civil penalty order. Second, the administrative sanctions. Under section 140M the sponsor can be barred for a specified period from sponsoring more people or from applying for a further approval, and an existing approval as a sponsor can be cancelled. Third, corrective action. An authorised officer can give the sponsor a compliance notice under section 140RB specifying the action it must take to address the contravention. The Minister can also accept an enforceable undertaking from the sponsor. Where the arrangement also amounts to asking for or receiving a benefit in return for a sponsorship-related event, section 245AR applies in addition, and it is both an offence and a civil penalty provision.

These outcomes rarely stay contained to the one nomination. A finding that a sponsor recovered prohibited costs can undermine a later nomination, complicate a worker’s transition to permanent residence, and surface on any future compliance review. Cost recovery built into an employment offer is a liability waiting to appear at renewal, on an audit, or in a dispute with a departing employee who has every incentive to raise it.

Because the nomination charge and the SAF levy are locked to the sponsor by legislation, a budget for a 482 SID hire should assume the business carries the full sponsorship cost from the outset. Treat the sponsor costs and the applicant costs as two separate ledgers, and keep records showing that each side paid what the law requires of it. That documentation is what protects the business if the arrangement is ever questioned.

Get the cost allocation right before you lodge

The line between sponsor costs and applicant costs is drawn by the sponsorship obligation in regulation 2.87 of the Migration Regulations and enforced through the Migration Act. It cannot be negotiated away in a contract. Structuring it correctly protects the sponsorship approval and the business’s ability to keep hiring skilled workers. Visa Plan Lawyers advises employers on lawful cost allocation, nomination strategy and sponsorship compliance across the 482 SID program.

If you are planning to sponsor a worker, book a consultation with our team about our employer sponsored visas service or read more about the Subclass 482 SID visa to understand your obligations before you commit to a nomination.

General information only, current at the date shown. It is not legal advice on your situation. To get advice on your matter, book a consultation.