Australia's skilled migration points test is getting a major overhaul - salary, age and bonus points all up for grabs

The 2026-27 Federal Budget confirmed what the migration sector has been anticipating for two years. The points test that governs Subclass 189, 190 and 491 visa selection is being rewritten. The current version rewards the wrong things and the government knows it.

The case against the current points test

Australia's skilled migration points test has not had a meaningful structural overhaul since the introduction of SkillSelect in 2012. For over a decade, it has operated on the same core logic: award points across a fixed set of categories, set a pass mark, and invite the highest scorers. On paper, that sounds rational. In practice, the system has drifted badly out of step with what Australia's labour market actually needs.

The clearest example: salary is worth zero points. A specialist surgeon earning $350,000 a year scores no higher than a graduate in the same occupation earning $72,000. The system treats them as identical migration candidates. That is not a quirk - it is a fundamental design failure, and successive departmental reviews have said as much without quite using those words.

Key issue: The current points test measures proxies for skill - age brackets, qualification levels, English scores - but ignores the most direct signal of labour market value available: what Australian employers are willing to pay.

The birthday cliff problem

Under the existing framework, turning 33 costs five points overnight. Turning 40 costs ten. Not across a year, not gradually - overnight.

There is no evidence base for this. No research suggests a 39-year-old is a meaningfully stronger economic contributor than a 40-year-old. The penalty exists because the system uses blunt age bands rather than continuous scoring - and it punishes applicants whose timelines were stretched by factors entirely outside their control, including Home Affairs' own processing delays.

The proposed model replaces these bands with an annual decay - each year of age produces a smaller, predictable reduction rather than a sudden drop. The table below is indicative only, drawn from sector consultations, but the directional intent appears settled.

Who gains ground and who loses it

Uncertainty queues up: Make or break

If you are currently on track under the existing system and your occupation remains on the relevant skills list, lodging sooner rather than later has merit. The transition arrangements - and whether existing EOIs will be grandfathered - have not been confirmed.

If you are relying heavily on Professional Year or NAATI points to reach a competitive score, the risk profile of your application has changed. Those categories appear to be on borrowed time. However, there could be a transition period and applicants who have the Professional Year and NAATI CCL points, may still be able to avail points. Building your score through language results, work experience or qualification upgrading is the more defensible path right now.

If income-based scoring is confirmed, a formal employer salary confirmation and organised payslips will matter for your application in a way they never have before.

The bottom line: Nothing is confirmed. But the direction of travel is consistent across every policy signal, industry consultation and budget announcement since early 2025. Applicants who plan for the proposed model and then benefit from the current one are in a better position than those who assume nothing will change. Message/call/sms to explore your options: +61410478759

At Newsted, we acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the land on which we work and live, and pay our respects to Elders past and present. We extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.