Author: Jamie Lingham – TEMi Immigration Liaison Officer
From 1 July 2026, Australia introduced significant increases to Visa Application Charges (VACs), adding to the cost of applying for many temporary and permanent visas. While annual fee increases are not unusual, this year’s changes go well beyond routine indexation for several visa subclasses, and they land at a moment when migration has become one of the most politically charged issues in the country.
The Employee Mobility Institute’s (TEMi) Immigration Advisory Group (IAG) believes these changes are more than an annual update. They represent another increase in the cost of accessing skilled migration at a time when many Australian businesses continue to face workforce shortages.
For employers and skilled migrants, the practical question is not just “how much more will this cost?” It is “what is this actually trying to achieve, and does it work?”
Some of the most significant increases include:
- Skills in Demand (subclass 482) visa: $3,210 to $4,015 (25% increase)
- Employer Nomination Scheme (subclass 186) visa: $4,910 to $6,140 (25% increase)
- Temporary Graduate (subclass 485) visa: $4,600 to $5,750
- Partner visas (subclasses 820 and 309): $9,365 to $11,710
- Bridging Visa B (subclass 020): $190 to $575, representing one of the largest percentage increases of any category.
These sit alongside other cost and threshold changes effective on the same date:
- The Core Skills Income Threshold (CSIT)and Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold (TSMIT) increased to $79,423.
- The Specialist Skills Income Threshold (SSIT) increased to $146,576.
- The Fair Work High Income Threshold (FWHIT)increased to $190,100, which is relevant for certain Employer Nomination Scheme (subclass 186) applicants relying on the age exemption.
- The Administrative Review Tribunal (ART)migration review application fee increased to $3,727 (up from $3,580), while the protection visa review application fee increased to $2,293 (up from $2,203).
- The Federal Circuit and Family Courtmigration application fee increased to $4,180 (up from $4,015), with the reduced application fee increasing to $2,090 (up from $2,005).
Separately, the Temporary Graduate visa application charge was doubled from 1 March 2026, a change the government itself has said is expected to raise an additional $1.2 billion in revenue over five years.
These numbers have understandably drawn criticism from migration specialists and employer groups, who argue that a system already strained by cost and complexity is becoming harder to justify to the skilled workers Australia says it wants to attract. More importantly, it is fair to expect that the hike would be allocated to resourcing more staff with the goal of reducing the extended processing times for applications. Yet, recent data from the Department of Home Affairs show that the timelines have extended. Additionally, reports from the ACB in April indicated that 1000 jobs were going to be cut as a result of budgetary directives.
Yet again, we see migrants used as a cash cow for the government during a time that anti-immigration sentiment is at an all-time high. Increases in fees for any voting Australian would be an outrage, but these significant fee hikes are deliberately targeted at non-voting individuals for the purpose of raising revenue, rather than reducing migration numbers.
The concerns raised by industry voices are legitimate and worth taking seriously. A 25% jump in employer-sponsored visa charges, layered on top of thresholds, review fees and court costs that have also risen, adds real friction for businesses trying to fill genuine skill shortages, particularly small and medium employers without large HR or legal budgets.
Families applying together can face costs running into the tens of thousands of dollars before medical checks, English testing, skills assessments and professional advice are even factored in. And the risk that applicants “self-lodge” to save money, only to face refusal or delay because of Australia’s genuinely complex migration law, is a real and well-documented failure mode.
In many cases, the financial and personal consequences of an unsuccessful application can far outweigh the initial savings.
Additionally, increasing the cost of migration risks making Australia less competitive in the global market for skilled talent, especially at a time when countries around the world are competing for highly skilled workers. Australia continues to offer exceptional career opportunities and quality of life, but rising migration costs may influence where talented individuals choose to build their future.
It is a fair warning. Australia is not the only country courting the same pool of engineers, nurses and tradespeople, and cost is one lever among several, alongside application processing times, pathway clarity, salary rates and quality of life, that shape where skilled workers ultimately choose to go.
For employers, the consequences may not be immediate, but they are significant. Reduced affordability and increased financial pressure on applicants may result in a smaller pool of prospective migrants, making it more difficult for businesses to attract and retain the skilled workers they need.
In practice, employers relying on skilled migration should be looking at a few concrete things:
- Budget for migration upfront.Sponsorship, visa, agent and compliance costs can exceed five figures per employee. Treat migration as a workforce planning cost alongside recruitment and training, not an unexpected expense.
- Plan earlier. With onshore applicants increasingly favoured, identify and support existing temporary visa holders, such as graduates, 482 holders, and students, before vacancies arise rather than relying on offshore recruitment.
- Prioritise compliance. Sponsorship obligations, record-keeping and workplace conditions should be embedded into everyday business practices as government scrutiny continues to increase.
- Invest in professional advice. Cutting corners to save on migration costs often leads to refusals, delays and higher overall expenses. Quality advice is usually the more cost-effective option.
- Think long term.Businesses that integrate migration into their ongoing workforce and retention strategy, rather than using it only as a last resort, will be better placed to compete for skilled talent in an increasingly selective migration system.
Migration remains one of the clearest economic assets available to Australia. The debate worth having is not whether it matters, but whether the price of accessing it is proportionate to the value it still, unmistakably, delivers.
