Part 1.
Why Skilled Work in Australia Matters More Than Ever, and Why Points Alone Are No Longer Enough
Mark Sekerin
Principal Migration Adviser
Before going further, it’s important to be clear about how this article should be read. What follows reflects my professional reading of how Australia’s migration system is currently operating in practice, based on day-to-day work with GSM and employer-sponsored cases, policy settings, and decision-making trends. It is not a restatement of Government policy or declared intent. Migration law and policy continue to evolve, and operational outcomes do not always align neatly with public announcements. Any reliance on the observations below is at the reader’s own risk, and individual circumstances always matter.
With that said, there is one conclusion that now sits at the centre of most serious migration planning:
For many applicants, Australia no longer selects people first and then tests them later.
It increasingly tests people first – and only then selects them.
A brief look back
Australia’s migration system has gone through several distinct phases.
There was the post-war migration wave, driven by survival, reconstruction, and nation-building. That was followed by the deliberate creation of a multicultural Australia, where migration was as much social policy as economic policy. Later came a strong emphasis on human capital – attracting educated, skilled people to fuel growth in an increasingly competitive global economy.
Today’s phase is different again. Migration numbers are more controlled. The focus is narrower. Skills must be specific, verified, and demonstrably needed. At the same time, the system is constrained – by housing, infrastructure, integrity concerns, administrative capacity, and political caution. Reform is happening, but carefully. Old structures are not being dismantled until replacements are proven to work.
The result is not a single, clean “new system”, but a set of settings that quietly change who succeeds and who doesn’t.
GSM still exists – but it no longer plays the same role
On paper, Australia still prioritises independent skilled migration.
There remains a clear hierarchy:
These pathways are real. They are not disappearing.
What has changed is how competitive they have become – and what is now required to be credible within them.
For many years, it was possible for some applicants to navigate toward GSM outcomes with limited or indirect alignment between their qualifications, their work history, and the occupation they nominated. That environment no longer exists. Higher points thresholds, tighter state criteria, and increased emphasis on Australian employment outcomes have narrowed the field considerably.
GSM is no longer a broad funnel. It is a narrow gate.
Why Australian work has become the filter
One practical consequence of this shift is that working in Australia – in the right role, at the right level – has become a form of verification.
Australian skilled employment does several things at once. It tests whether skills are real and current. It demonstrates labour market demand. It produces salary evidence. It shows whether a person can operate at the expected standard in the Australian workplace.
In other words, it converts potential into proof.
As GSM has become more competitive, this type of proof has become harder to replace with points alone. For many applicants – particularly graduates and onshore temporary visa holders – this has changed the order of operations entirely.
ENS is no longer a fallback for many people
This is where employer-sponsored migration quietly moves to the centre of the system.
For a growing number of candidates, the realistic pathway is no longer:
qualify → apply for GSM → hope for an invitation
It is instead:
work in Australia → prove skills and value → transition through employer-sponsored pathways → access permanency
That does not mean ENS is easier. It comes with its own complexity, compliance requirements, and risks. But it aligns closely with what the system is now trying to test: genuine work, genuine demand, and market-based validation.
For many applicants, ENS is not a consolation prize. It is the main road.
Why this matters for planning
The most important implication is not legal – it is strategic.
Migration planning is no longer about choosing a visa subclass and then trying to make life fit it. It is about sequencing: what you do first, what evidence you build, and when certain options realistically open or close.
Outdated assumptions – particularly around study pathways, graduate visas, or “eventual” GSM eligibility – k can lead to years of lost time if they are not reassessed early.
This series starts with the conclusion because it frames everything that follows. The next articles will unpack why the system behaves this way, how GSM and ENS now interact in practice, and what credible planning looks like under current conditions.
Understanding that shift early is no longer optional. It is foundational.
In the next article, I will look at why the Government’s stated intentions and the system’s practical outcomes often diverge – and why that gap matters when planning migration today.
Not to miss, follow me in LinkedIn, X or Telegram!
With that said, there is one conclusion that now sits at the centre of most serious migration planning:
For many applicants, Australia no longer selects people first and then tests them later.
It increasingly tests people first – and only then selects them.
A brief look back
Australia’s migration system has gone through several distinct phases.
There was the post-war migration wave, driven by survival, reconstruction, and nation-building. That was followed by the deliberate creation of a multicultural Australia, where migration was as much social policy as economic policy. Later came a strong emphasis on human capital – attracting educated, skilled people to fuel growth in an increasingly competitive global economy.
Today’s phase is different again. Migration numbers are more controlled. The focus is narrower. Skills must be specific, verified, and demonstrably needed. At the same time, the system is constrained – by housing, infrastructure, integrity concerns, administrative capacity, and political caution. Reform is happening, but carefully. Old structures are not being dismantled until replacements are proven to work.
The result is not a single, clean “new system”, but a set of settings that quietly change who succeeds and who doesn’t.
GSM still exists – but it no longer plays the same role
On paper, Australia still prioritises independent skilled migration.
There remains a clear hierarchy:
- Independent GSM for skills in confirmed national demand
- State and regional GSM for skills needed in specific locations
- Global talent pathways for exceptional profiles
These pathways are real. They are not disappearing.
What has changed is how competitive they have become – and what is now required to be credible within them.
For many years, it was possible for some applicants to navigate toward GSM outcomes with limited or indirect alignment between their qualifications, their work history, and the occupation they nominated. That environment no longer exists. Higher points thresholds, tighter state criteria, and increased emphasis on Australian employment outcomes have narrowed the field considerably.
GSM is no longer a broad funnel. It is a narrow gate.
Why Australian work has become the filter
One practical consequence of this shift is that working in Australia – in the right role, at the right level – has become a form of verification.
Australian skilled employment does several things at once. It tests whether skills are real and current. It demonstrates labour market demand. It produces salary evidence. It shows whether a person can operate at the expected standard in the Australian workplace.
In other words, it converts potential into proof.
As GSM has become more competitive, this type of proof has become harder to replace with points alone. For many applicants – particularly graduates and onshore temporary visa holders – this has changed the order of operations entirely.
ENS is no longer a fallback for many people
This is where employer-sponsored migration quietly moves to the centre of the system.
For a growing number of candidates, the realistic pathway is no longer:
qualify → apply for GSM → hope for an invitation
It is instead:
work in Australia → prove skills and value → transition through employer-sponsored pathways → access permanency
That does not mean ENS is easier. It comes with its own complexity, compliance requirements, and risks. But it aligns closely with what the system is now trying to test: genuine work, genuine demand, and market-based validation.
For many applicants, ENS is not a consolation prize. It is the main road.
Why this matters for planning
The most important implication is not legal – it is strategic.
Migration planning is no longer about choosing a visa subclass and then trying to make life fit it. It is about sequencing: what you do first, what evidence you build, and when certain options realistically open or close.
Outdated assumptions – particularly around study pathways, graduate visas, or “eventual” GSM eligibility – k can lead to years of lost time if they are not reassessed early.
This series starts with the conclusion because it frames everything that follows. The next articles will unpack why the system behaves this way, how GSM and ENS now interact in practice, and what credible planning looks like under current conditions.
Understanding that shift early is no longer optional. It is foundational.
In the next article, I will look at why the Government’s stated intentions and the system’s practical outcomes often diverge – and why that gap matters when planning migration today.
Not to miss, follow me in LinkedIn, X or Telegram!
Let’s Discuss Your Visa Strategy
Every case starts with a conversation.
Contact me to arrange a confidential initial consultation — online or in person.
Contact me to arrange a confidential initial consultation — online or in person.
Let’s Discuss Your Visa Strategy
Every case starts with a conversation.
Contact me to arrange a confidential initial consultation — online or in person.
Contact me to arrange a confidential initial consultation — online or in person.
