Why your nomination lodgement date sets the salary threshold

The nomination lodgement date, not the decision date, fixes which salary threshold applies to an employer sponsored nomination. A nomination lodged before 1 July is assessed against the figure in force on that lodgement date, even if the case officer decides it after 1 July. This single rule can change when an employer lodges and what salary it commits to. What the rule does not do matters just as much, because clearing the money is only the first of several independent tests.

What the lodgement-date rule says

For a nomination for a Skills in Demand (SID) subclass 482 visa or an Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS) subclass 186 visa, the relevant salary threshold is the one in force on the day the nomination is lodged. Processing time does not change the figure. If the threshold indexes upward on 1 July, a nomination already sitting in the queue keeps the pre-July figure.

The rule exists to keep the assessment predictable. Thresholds and decision timelines rarely line up. A nomination can wait weeks or months for a decision, and the queue length is outside the sponsor’s control. If the applicable figure moved with the decision date, an employer could lodge in good faith against one number and then be assessed against a higher one purely because of processing delay. The salary commitment would become a moving target set by the Department’s workload rather than by the employer’s offer. Fixing the figure at lodgement removes that risk and lets a sponsor calculate the commitment with certainty on the day it signs.

Why timing around 1 July is the pressure point

Several thresholds in the skilled and employer sponsored program are reviewed and can change with effect from 1 July. Late June and early July are therefore the period where the lodgement-date rule has the sharpest consequences.

If a threshold is set to rise on 1 July and the nominated salary sits between the old and new figures, lodging before 1 July can mean the nomination is assessed against the lower figure. Lodge on or after 1 July and the higher figure may apply. The difference can decide whether a nomination meets the threshold at all, and a nomination that fails the salary test is refused, taking the linked visa application with it.

The specific dollar figures are not stated here because they must be confirmed against the primary source at the time of lodgement. Always check the current figure for the relevant visa and stream on the Department of Home Affairs website before making a timing decision.

The thresholds are not all the same

A common and costly assumption is that every employer sponsored threshold changes in the same way at the same time. It does not.

• The SID Core Skills stream is tied to the Core Skills Income Threshold (CSIT) and the Core Skills Occupation List (CSOL).
• The SID Specialist Skills stream is tied to the Specialist Skills Income Threshold (SSIT).
• The ENS Direct Entry pathway draws on the CSOL, with income thresholds indexed annually.
• The regional subclass 494 and subclass 187 pathways are tied to the Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold (TSMIT), which from 1 July 2026 is aligned with the CSIT and indexed automatically under regulation 5.42A of the Migration Regulations 1994.

These thresholds carry different dollar figures, so the stream a nomination sits in determines which figure applies. From 1 July 2026 the TSMIT is aligned with the Core Skills Income Threshold and indexed automatically under regulation 5.42A, on the same annual cycle, following the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2026 (F2026L00874). The first automatic indexation day is 1 July 2027. Because that indexation is now written into the Regulations rather than announced case by case, the cycle can be anticipated in advance, but the current figure should still be confirmed against the Federal Register of Legislation or the Department of Home Affairs before relying on it.

Threshold or market rate: whichever is higher

The lodgement-date rule fixes the threshold, but the threshold is only half the salary test. The nominated salary must meet the relevant income threshold or the Annual Market Salary Rate for the role, whichever is higher.

If the market rate for a particular occupation and location exceeds the threshold, the market rate governs. Timing a lodgement to catch a lower threshold achieves nothing if the market rate for the position is already above it. The two figures are assessed together, and the higher one applies. Employers should evidence the Annual Market Salary Rate carefully, drawing on an equivalent Australian worker where one exists, or on a defensible external benchmark where one does not, because a nomination that meets the threshold but understates the market rate can still be refused.

Clearing the money is necessary, not sufficient

Even a nomination that clears both the threshold and the market rate is not home. The salary tests decide how much the position must pay. They say nothing about whether the position is real, or whether the work matches the occupation the sponsor has nominated. Those questions are assessed separately, and the decision-maker is not bound by the sponsor’s own account of them.

That principle was confirmed in Cargo First Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 30. The sponsor had certified in writing that the nominated position was genuine, as the nomination form requires. The Federal Court held that the sponsor’s certification is not conclusive. The decision-maker must independently assess whether the position is genuine, and whether a significant majority of the tasks of the position correspond to the tasks of the nominated ANZSCO occupation. On the facts, that independent assessment was not satisfied, and the nomination refusal was upheld. The judgment is published as Cargo First Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 30.

The lesson for timing is direct. Getting the salary figure right, on the right date, against the right threshold, is necessary but not sufficient. A sponsor can pay well above the threshold, evidence the market rate to the cent, lodge on the ideal day, and still lose the nomination if the position does not stand up as genuine or the day-to-day tasks do not line up with the nominated occupation. Salary is the first gate, and there are others behind it.

What this means for how you evidence the position

Because genuineness and task match are assessed independently, the position needs its own evidence, separate from the salary calculation. The nomination should describe the actual duties rather than reproduce the ANZSCO description, and the duties described should be ones the business plausibly needs and can support. Organisational context helps: where the role sits, who it reports to, why the business requires it now, and how the tasks fill a working week. Where the occupation code is a close but imperfect fit, the task match is where a nomination is most exposed, and it is worth resolving before lodgement rather than in response to a request for information.

A short checklist before you lodge

• Confirm the current threshold for the exact visa subclass and stream, as at the intended lodgement date, against the Department of Home Affairs.
• For subclass 494 and 187 nominations, confirm the current TSMIT against the Federal Register or the Department of Home Affairs, noting it is aligned with the CSIT and indexed annually under regulation 5.42A from 1 July 2026.
• Compare the threshold against the Annual Market Salary Rate for the role and use the higher figure.
• Confirm the nominated occupation sits on the correct occupation list, classified by its ANZSCO code, and that a significant majority of the actual tasks match that occupation.
• Prepare evidence that the position is genuine on its own terms, beyond the adequacy of the salary.
• Decide whether lodging before or after a 1 July change serves the nomination best, and lodge deliberately rather than by accident.

Where mistakes happen

Most threshold problems come from timing decisions made without checking the primary source, from assuming all thresholds move together, from treating the threshold as the whole salary test when the Annual Market Salary Rate can override it, and from assuming the sponsor’s word on genuineness settles a question the decision-maker assesses independently. A refused nomination can jeopardise the linked visa application and cost the sponsored worker their pathway, so the margin for error is thin.

Visa Plan Lawyers advises employers and sponsored workers on nomination timing, salary evidence, position genuineness and stream selection across the SID and ENS programs. The firm’s work is to see that a nomination is lodged against the correct figure, for a position that stands up on its own, with the right supporting evidence, the first time.

If you are planning a nomination around 1 July or weighing which stream fits your role, book a consultation with our team. Learn more about our employer sponsored visa services, the subclass 482 SID visa, and the subclass 494 regional pathway.

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.