Part 3.
How GSM Actually Works Now – and Why Meeting the Criteria Is No Longer Enough

In the previous articles, I explained why skilled migration has become more selective and why the system increasingly tests skills and credibility before selection occurs.

This article looks more closely at GSM itself – not in theory, but in practice. In particular, it explains why many applicants who technically meet the criteria still never receive an invitation.

As before, this reflects my professional reading of how the system is operating on the ground. It is not Government policy and it is not advice.

Eligibility is not selection

One of the most common misunderstandings about GSM is the assumption that meeting the criteria naturally leads to an invitation.

It does not.

Meeting the points test, having a suitable occupation, and lodging a valid expression of interest only establishes eligibility. Selection happens later, under pressure, and in numbers that are far smaller than the pool of eligible candidates.

In today’s system, eligibility is common; invitations are not.

GSM increasingly operates like a lottery

In practice, GSM has taken on the characteristics of a lottery-style system.

This does not mean invitations are random in a legal sense. But for many candidates who meet the criteria and even exceed the minimum points, the outcome can feel arbitrary and unpredictable.

Candidates with similar profiles and points may remain in the pool for months or years, not because they are unsuitable, but because their occupation, points score, or EOI lodgement date does not align with the settings of a particular invitation round.

From the candidate’s perspective, this can still feel unpredictable, even though the process itself is rules-based.

In that sense, GSM now resembles a highly constrained draw, not a linear or merit-ranked pathway. Meeting the criteria gives you a ticket – it does not give you control over the outcome.

It is also an expensive lottery

Unlike a true lottery, GSM comes with significant financial cost, incurred long before any outcome is known.

Most candidates must invest heavily in:

• improving and repeatedly sitting English language tests
• obtaining a skills assessment, often at substantial assessor fees
• professional translations of qualifications and employment documents
• professional fees for migration advice and application preparation

These costs are often unavoidable, and they are incurred without any assurance of success. For many applicants, the total investment runs into many thousands of dollars simply to remain competitive in the pool.

This changes the risk profile of GSM significantly.

The emotional toll is real and often underestimated

There is also a human cost.

GSM is complex, slow, and opaque. Candidates are asked to invest time, money, and emotional energy into a process where:

• outcomes are uncertain
• timelines are unpredictable
• criteria can shift between invitation rounds
• refusal or stagnation may occur without clear explanation

I regularly see capable, well-qualified people exhaust their options not because they are unsuitable, but because the process itself becomes unsustainable. The emotional toll of repeated testing, rising costs, and prolonged uncertainty is substantial – particularly for families and long-term planners.

This is rarely acknowledged in official descriptions of the program, but it is very real in practice.

Invitation rounds are the real decision point

The actual selection mechanism in GSM is not the points test itself, but invitation rounds.

When invitation rounds are examined over time, consistent patterns emerge:

• only a limited group of occupations are invited with any regularity
• minimum points are often far higher than the announced threshold 65 points
• invitations concentrate on roles where demand is clear and difficult to dispute

This tells us that GSM is no longer a broad ranking exercise. It is a highly selective filtering process, applied to a narrow group.

In that environment, simply having “enough points” is rarely enough.

Points still matter – but they are no longer decisive on their own

Points have not disappeared. They still matter and still shape competitiveness. But points increasingly function as a baseline, not a guarantee.

When invitation cut-offs sit in the high 80s or 90s, many candidates discover that theoretical point-building options are insufficient in practice. Age, English, overseas experience, and partner points all help – but they often do not close the gap on their own.

This is where Australian-based factors, particularly skilled employment, become decisive.

Occupations matter more than ever

Another uncomfortable reality is that not all skilled occupations are treated equally in practice.
Invitation rounds tend to favour occupations where:

• labour demand is persistent and well documented
• domestic supply is difficult to increase quickly
• skill levels are clear and easy to assess

For other occupations, invitations may be rare, thresholds extreme, or both.

This does not reflect the value of those occupations. It reflects how selection operates in a constrained system.

Skills assessments narrow the field early

Many candidates never reach the invitation stage at all.

Skills assessments act as an early gatekeeper. Without a positive assessment, there is no valid expression of interest and no participation in invitation rounds.

In practice, assessment authorities increasingly apply standards that mirror Australian workplace expectations. For some applicants, offshore experience alone does not meet those standards, particularly where roles are structured differently or documentation is weak.

As a result, GSM options may narrow or disappear well before points or invitations are considered.

Why GSM increasingly follows ENS, not the other way around

Taken together, these dynamics explain a pattern that is now common:

For many candidates, GSM is no longer the starting point. It is the later outcome, accessed only after skills have been proven through Australian employment, often via employer-sponsored pathways.

GSM has not disappeared. But its role has changed.

What this means for planning

The practical lesson is simple but uncomfortable.

Planning migration around GSM alone, without accounting for competitiveness, cost, and uncertainty, carries significant risk. Early decisions about occupation, study, employment, and sequencing now determine whether GSM will ever be realistic.

For many people, the real question is no longer:
“Do I meet the GSM criteria?” It is: “Is this lottery worth the financial and emotional cost – or do I need a different strategy altogether?”

In the next article, I will turn directly to employer-sponsored migration – why it has become central to the system, and how it now functions as the main testing ground before permanency is considered.

Not to miss, follow me in LinkedIn, X or Telegram!