407 Training Plan
+ GTE Statement

Two documents, one file, one decision-maker

The training plan is written about the nominee, in the third person, and evidences what the business will teach them. The statement is written as the applicant, in the first person, and addresses why they intend to stay temporarily and what takes them home. They go to different decisions — the nomination under regulation 2.72A, the visa under Part 407 of Schedule 2 — but increasingly to the same reader, and always to the same file.

The Department’s own policy guidance on the genuine-intention criterion directs officers to consider evidence that the applicant’s main purpose is work rather than training. That single head of consideration is the join between the two documents. A plan that reads like a job description supplies the evidence; a statement that talks about career advancement in Australia rather than training to be used at home confirms it.

The contradictions that sink a 407 file are small and mechanical. A plan running twenty-four months beside a statement that speaks of returning after a year. A role described one way by the employer and another by the applicant. A home-country employer named in one document and absent from the other. A nomination category that assumes registration abroad, beside a statement that never mentions the registering body. None of these is a question of merit. Each is a document-control failure, and each is avoidable by drafting both from one intake.

The criterion is clause 407.217, not “GTE”

It is worth getting the name right, because the shorthand is now actively misleading.

“Genuine temporary entrant” has never been the statutory language for Subclass 407. The criterion is clause 407.217 for the primary applicant and clause 407.315 for family members, and it reads: the applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa is granted, having regard to compliance with the conditions of any previous substantive visa, whether they intend to comply with the conditions this visa would carry, and any other relevant matter.

The March 2024 reform that replaced the GTE test with the Genuine Student test applied to Subclass 500 only. It did not touch Subclass 407. The Department and the profession still say “GTE” as shorthand for clause 407.217 — the Department’s own released policy uses the heading “genuine temporary entry” — so we use both names on this page. The document we write addresses the clause.

No Ministerial Direction governs clause 407.217. Unlike the student program, where Direction 106 structures the Genuine Student assessment, no direction under section 499 of the Act was found that governs how clause 407.217 is assessed. The clause carries its own mandatory considerations, and departmental policy supplies the rest. That makes the statement’s structure a matter of addressing the clause and the policy heads directly, rather than of answering a direction’s numbered factors.

What the statement must address

Three considerations are mandatory on the face of the clause. The Department’s released policy adds the heads it directs officers to work through under “any other relevant matter”.

Disclose the Australian ties. “Ties to Australia” is a head of consideration, not a disqualifier. An Australian-resident partner, parent or sibling that the delegate discovers for themselves does far more damage than one addressed on the first page, with the reasons the applicant still intends to leave set out beside it.

What the two documents do about the 11 March 2026 change

Since 11 March 2026 a 407 application is not valid until the nomination has been approved. Sponsorship, nomination and visa run in sequence, and the nomination approval itself expires twelve months after it is given under regulation 2.75A(2)(b).

That changes the drafting order. The training plan is now on the critical path and the statement follows it — but the statement has to be written to the plan that was approved, not to the draft that was sent. Where a nomination is approved with the program narrowed or a date moved, a statement drafted months earlier will contradict it.

Ordering both together is partly a quality decision and partly a sequencing one. We hold the statement to the approved nomination, and we tell you what in it has to change if the nomination is approved on different terms.

Specificity is the whole game

Clause 407.217 is a discretionary assessment, and discretionary assessments are won on detail that could only be true of this applicant. Delegates read a great many of these statements, and a generic one is discounted rather than disbelieved.

“I am close to my family” carries nothing. A named employer holding a position open with a letter saying so, a mortgage with a lender and a balance, dependants who remain at home, a family business the applicant has a stated role in, a professional registration that cannot be completed in Australia — those move the assessment, because each is checkable and none of them could be written about anyone else.

The statement is the applicant’s, in their own voice, written from their answers and signed by them. We do not write it as a submission from an agent, because that is not what the Department is reading.

What the package covers

• The training plan built to regulation 2.72A and the chosen category under regulation 2.72B — phased structure, named supervisor, assessment points, worksites, and the delivery basis under regulation 2.72A(12)

• The clause 407.217 statement in the applicant’s first-person voice, addressing each mandatory consideration and each departmental policy head

• A consistency pass across both on dates, duration, role, occupation code, worksites, remuneration, the home-country position and the stated purpose

• Immigration history set out in full, with any refusal or cancellation anywhere in the world addressed rather than left to be found

• Clause 407.315 statements for accompanying family members where they are applying, with condition 8104 acknowledged

• A date line from the nominee’s current visa expiry back through nomination and sponsorship lodgement, so the sequencing risk is visible before it bites

Turnaround and price

A$1,450 incl GST at 10 to 12 working days, A$1,570 at five to seven, A$2,050 at two, and A$2,250 for next working day. The turnaround is chosen on the form and the price updates as you choose it. Both documents are delivered together.

Ordered separately, a training plan and a statement come to more than the package and carry the consistency risk the package removes. If the training plan already exists, order the statement on its own — it is A$550, and we write it to the plan you have.

General information, current at October 2026. This page explains the Subclass 407 nomination requirements and the clause 407.217 criterion as they stand, and how we document them. Zeolla Solutions prepares migration documentation, research and reports — we are not a law practice and this is not immigration advice. Your registered migration agent or lawyer advises on your matter; we build the evidence.