407 Training
Plan Report
A structured occupational training plan written to the provisions it actually has to satisfy — what is taught, by whom, over what period, how it is assessed, and why the nominee needs it.
What a 407 training plan is — and what it is not
The Subclass 407 visa is for occupational training. The sponsor nominates a program of occupational training, the Department approves or refuses that nomination, and the visa stands or falls with it. The training plan is the document that carries the nomination.
It is worth being precise about its legal status, because a great deal of what is written about it is wrong. The words “training plan” appear nowhere in the Subclass 407 framework — not in Part 407 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, not in regulation 2.72A or 2.72B, not in the nomination instrument LIN 19/215, not in IMMI 16/108, and not in the Explanatory Statement to the regulation that created the visa. There is no clause number for it, and anyone citing one is inventing it.
What the training plan actually is: the evidence by which a sponsor discharges its burden on criteria that are legislated. That distinction is not academic. It tells you how the document has to be written — not to a template checklist, but to each provision the delegate must be satisfied of.
A plan written to a template answers nobody’s question. Because there is no legislated list of contents, there is no form of words that is automatically sufficient. What makes a plan work is that every section of it maps onto a provision the delegate has to apply, and the delegate can see the mapping without doing the work themselves.
The change that caught the market out: 11 March 2026
On 10 March 2026 the Government registered the Migration Amendment (Training Visas—Sponsorship Requirements) Regulations 2026. It commenced the next day, with no consultation — the Explanatory Statement records that end users were not consulted because consultation “could undermine the change”.
What it did is simple and expensive. Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations was amended so that, for a 407 application to be valid at all, the named sponsor must already be an approved temporary activities sponsor, the nomination must already have been approved, that approval must not have ceased, and the application must identify the nomination.
Concurrent lodgement is gone. Sponsorship, nomination and visa must now run in sequence, and each one has to finish before the next can start.
| Step | Form and fee | Must be finished before |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Temporary activities sponsorship | Form 1478, A$420 — only if not already approved | The nomination can be lodged |
| 2. Nomination of the training program | Form 1479N, A$170 | The visa application can be valid |
| 3. Visa application | A$535 from 1 July 2026 | — |
Why this matters more to an onshore applicant than to anyone else. A bridging visa only becomes available once a valid 407 application is lodged — and the application is not valid until the nomination is approved. An onshore nominee therefore has to hold a substantive visa for the whole time the sponsorship and nomination are being processed. Applications lodged before 11 March 2026 are unaffected, but every new matter has to be planned backwards from the nominee’s current visa expiry, not forwards from the proposed training start date.
There are five nomination categories, not three
The Department markets three “types” of occupational training. The law has five, and they sit in regulation 2.72B(2) to (6). A nomination has to satisfy one of them completely — not partially, and not a blend of two.
| Category | Provision | What it requires |
|---|---|---|
| Registration, membership or licensing | reg 2.72B(2) | Training needed to obtain registration or licensing — in Australia or at home — that is required to work in the occupation; duration proportionate to prior experience; workplace-based; nominee suitably qualified |
| Improving skills in an eligible occupation | reg 2.72B(3) | A structured workplace-based program tailored to the nominee’s needs; the occupation specified by instrument; 12 months’ experience in the preceding 24 |
| Overseas qualification requirement | reg 2.72B(4) | No more than 6 months of practical experience, research or observation needed to complete a qualification from a foreign institution; structured and workplace-based |
| Government support | reg 2.72B(5) | Training supported by a government agency, or by the government of the nominee’s home country; structured and workplace-based |
| Professional development | reg 2.72B(6) | Nominee has an overseas employer and a managerial or professional position with it; training develops those skills; primarily face-to-face classroom teaching |
The category is chosen first, and it decides everything after it. Each category has its own structure test, its own duration logic and its own evidence. A plan drafted in the abstract and then labelled with a category afterwards is the most common structural failure we see on files sent to us for review.
The provisions the plan has to satisfy
This is the mapping that matters. Every one of these is a criterion the delegate must be satisfied of before the nomination can be approved — and each one is a section of a properly built plan.
| Provision | What the plan must establish |
|---|---|
| reg 2.72A(16) | The program is offered as a genuine training opportunity for the purpose in the applicable category |
| reg 2.72A(5) | The nominee will participate in the nominated program |
| reg 2.72A(12) | Who delivers the training — the sponsor directly, a Commonwealth-endorsed arrangement, or circumstances specified by instrument |
| reg 2.72A(13) | The sponsor will not displace Australians or undercut their conditions of employment |
| reg 2.72A(14) | The nominee has functional English |
| reg 2.72A(8) | Employer details, every worksite, and each family member who will apply |
| reg 2.72B(2)–(6) | The structure, duration and necessity tests for the chosen category |
| cl 407.217 | The applicant’s genuine intention to stay temporarily — which the plan must not contradict |
What “structured and tailored” actually means
Four of the five categories require the program to be structured and tailored to the nominee’s needs, lasting as long as those needs require. That phrase is doing all the work, and it is where plans fail.
“Structured” means the program has a shape that exists independently of the day-to-day needs of the business: phases, each with its own objectives, its own teaching method and its own assessment point, in a sequence that moves from observation and supervised practice toward independent competence. “Tailored” means the shape was built around this nominee — their existing qualifications, their existing experience, and the specific gap between that and the thing they are being trained to do.
A phase described as “the trainee will assist the team” is indistinguishable from a job description, and that is exactly the inference a delegate draws. The Department’s own policy guidance directs officers to consider evidence that the applicant’s main purpose is work rather than training. The plan either forecloses that inference or invites it.
Workplace-based training is required, not discouraged
A persistent myth holds that 407 training must not be predominantly on-the-job. The legislation says the opposite. Regulation 2.72B(2)(d) requires the training to be workplace-based; 2.72B(3)(a), 2.72B(4) and 2.72B(5) each require a structured, workplace-based program. Only professional development under 2.72B(6) requires the reverse — primarily face-to-face classroom teaching.
So the line the law draws is not between the workplace and the classroom. It is between structured, tailored training and ordinary productive employment. Training can be delivered almost entirely on the floor and still be plainly training, if the structure and the assessment are real.
What the law does not say
Two figures circulate widely, including on the websites of institutions that sponsor 407 trainees: a minimum of 30 hours per week of structured training, and at least 70% workplace-based. Neither appears in the Migration Act, the Migration Regulations, or any legislative instrument made for Subclass 407.
We write plans that are defensible on their own structure rather than against invented thresholds — and we will not put a number in a plan and attribute it to a rule that does not exist. The 70% figure is worse than unsupported: for a professional development nomination, a predominantly classroom program is what the law actually requires.
The occupation and experience test
This applies to the “improving skills in an eligible occupation” category under regulation 2.72B(3), which is the one most sponsors use.
The occupation must be one specified by the Minister under paragraph 2.72B(3)(b). The current instrument is LIN 19/050, in its 14 December 2024 compilation, which specifies occupations across three lists — the Medium and Long-term Strategic Skills List, the Regional Occupation List and the Short-term Skilled Occupation List. The occupation applies to the nominee only where the tasks they will actually perform correspond to the tasks set out for that occupation code.
And the nominee must already have the equivalent of at least 12 months of full-time experience in that occupation within the 24 months immediately before the nomination — regulation 2.72B(3)(c). Not 12 months of any work; 12 months in the occupation being nominated.
407 runs on ANZSCO, and not the version you may be expecting. The 23 November 2022 freeze that practitioners associate with employer-sponsored nominations applies to regulations 2.72, 2.73 and subregulation 5.19(5) — the Subclass 482 and 186 nomination provisions. Regulations 2.72A and 2.72B are not in that list, so a 407 nomination takes ANZSCO in the version specified for this purpose by the Migration (ANZSCO Definition) Specification 2024. OSCA does not apply to Subclass 407 — or, for that matter, anywhere in the Migration Regulations.
The registration pathway, where it is the right fit
Regulation 2.72B(2) is the strongest category when it fits, because the necessity for the training comes from outside the sponsor’s own say-so — a registration body has already decided that supervised practice is required. Five conditions apply cumulatively:
Necessity The training is needed for the nominee to obtain registration, membership or licensing for their occupation — in Australia or in their home country.
Requirement That registration, membership or licensing is required in order to work in the occupation.
Proportionate duration The duration is necessary to obtain it, taking the nominee’s prior experience into account — so credit for what they have already done has to be visible.
Workplace-based The training is delivered in the workplace.
Suitability The nominee has appropriate qualifications and experience for the training.
What the evidence has to do
Name the registering or licensing body. Show that registration is a legal or practical precondition to working in the occupation in that country. Produce the body’s own stated requirement for supervised practice, in its own words. Then map the program’s duration to that requirement minus credit for the nominee’s existing experience — which is where an over-qualified nominee quietly destroys their own case, because the longer the program runs past what the nominee needs, the weaker the necessity it is said to meet.
Capacity building overseas: three different arguments
The overseas qualification requirement — reg 2.72B(4)
The nominee needs no more than six months of practical experience, research or observation to obtain a qualification from a foreign educational institution. This is the only express duration ceiling anywhere in regulation 2.72B, and it is a hard one: a program drafted at eight or twelve months under this category cannot be approved whatever its merits. The institution’s own requirement, in writing, is the centre of the evidence.
Government support — reg 2.72B(5)
The training is supported by a government agency, or by the government of the nominee’s home country. The support has to be documented and attributable — a letter from the agency or government, not an assertion that a program is “government-aligned”. The structure and tailoring tests apply as they do elsewhere, and duration runs to need rather than to a fixed cap.
Professional development — reg 2.72B(6)
The nominee must have an overseas employer and hold a managerial or professional position with it; the training must develop those skills and provide skills relevant to that employer’s business; and its primary form must be face-to-face teaching in a classroom or similar setting. This is the one category where a predominantly on-the-job program is fatal rather than expected.
No maximum duration specific to professional development exists in the Regulations, despite figures that circulate. The only duration cap is the two-year ceiling that applies to every 407 grant.
Who is allowed to deliver the training
Regulation 2.72A(12) requires the Minister to be satisfied of one of four things, and a plan that does not make clear which one applies has left a criterion unaddressed:
The sponsor delivers it directly. The ordinary case, and the one that needs the most evidence of capacity.
A Commonwealth agency supports the sponsor and has given a letter endorsing the arrangement.
The sponsor is a specified kind of entity. Under IMMI 16/108: state and territory government agencies; higher education providers listed as both Table A and Table B providers under the Higher Education Support Act 2003; and entities engaged in health care, scientific research, social assistance or religious services.
The circumstances are specified by instrument. Under IMMI 16/108 this covers registration-pathway training meeting the five conditions above, and training delivered by an associated entity of the sponsor within section 50AAA of the Corporations Act 2001 — which is the provision that makes group-company training arrangements workable.
The sponsor must also be able to deliver what it promises. Regulation 2.60 requires a temporary activities sponsor to have the capacity to satisfy its sponsorship obligations, and a program the business plainly cannot staff or supervise is evidence against regulation 2.72A(16) rather than for it.
The mentor question, answered properly
Sponsors are routinely told that a 407 mentor must hold particular qualifications, must have a particular number of years in the occupation, or must not supervise more than a set number of trainees. None of that is in the law. No qualification requirement, no years-of-experience requirement and no trainee-to-supervisor ratio appears in regulation 2.72A, regulation 2.72B, IMMI 16/108, LIN 19/050 or LIN 19/215.
What is in the law is the delivery requirement in regulation 2.72A(12), the sponsor-capacity requirement in regulation 2.60, and the “structured” and “genuine training opportunity” tests. Supervision matters enormously — but as evidence going to those provisions, not as a rule with a number attached.
In practice that makes the supervisor section stronger, not weaker. A named individual, with their actual position, their actual qualifications, their years in the occupation and the time they will spend on this trainee, is evidence that the program is real. A mentor identified as “the manager” is evidence of nothing, and is one of the most common reasons a plan is queried.
Functional English, twice over
Clause 407.212 requires the applicant to have functional English. Regulation 2.72A(14) separately requires the Minister to be satisfied that the nominee has functional English before the nomination can be approved.
That is two separate decisions on the same fact, at two separate stages, and the nomination is the earlier of them. Functional English is the lowest of the Migration Act’s English tiers — it is defined in section 5(2) of the Act, and the evidence that satisfies it is specified by the Migration (Evidence of Functional English Language Proficiency) Instrument 2025. There is no exemption in Part 407, and the requirement does not vary by category.
Duration, and the twelve-month trap
Every 407 visa is capped at two years. Clause 407.511 permits a period of stay “which must not exceed 2 years” whether the applicant is inside or outside Australia at grant, and no category is capped at twelve months.
The twelve months that circulates is a different thing, and since 11 March 2026 it is a far more dangerous one. Regulation 2.75A(2)(b) provides that the approval of a nomination ceases twelve months after the day it was approved. Approval also ends earlier on withdrawal, on the sponsor’s approval ceasing or being cancelled, or on the visa being granted.
Put the two changes together. The nomination must be approved before the visa application is valid, and the nomination approval expires twelve months after it is given. Clause 407.214(c) requires the approval not to have ceased. So on a slow file, the sequencing itself can refuse the nomination’s own visa — a failure of timing rather than merit, and one of the two reasons we build a date line into every plan we write.
What a 407 costs a sponsor — and what it does not
| Charge | Amount | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Temporary activities sponsorship | A$420 | Form 1478; only where the business is not already an approved sponsor |
| Nomination | A$170 | Form 1479N, per nomination |
| Visa application charge | A$535 | Main applicant, from 1 July 2026 |
| Skilling Australians Fund levy | Nil | Does not apply to Subclass 407 |
No SAF levy is a real advantage, and it is worth knowing why. The nomination training contribution charge is scoped by the Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Regulations 2018, which list Subclasses 457, 482, 494, 186 and 187 exhaustively. Subclass 407 appears nowhere in them. There is also no market salary rate requirement and no income threshold for 407 — the threshold that rose to A$79,423 on 1 July 2026 applies to Subclass 494 and 187 nominations, not to training visas. Where the arrangement is employment, Australian workplace law still applies in full, and an underpaid or displacing arrangement engages regulation 2.72A(13).
Why 407 nominations are being refused right now
This is not a quiet corner of the program. The Department’s own Explanatory Statement to the March 2026 amendment records “a significant increase in onshore applications for the visa since the middle of 2024”, that the increase “has resulted in lengthier processing times for applicants who are seeking genuine training”, and that “the numbers of nomination applications not meeting legislative requirements for approval has also increased”. The amendment was aimed at applications made to “bypass skilled migration pathways or to extend an onshore visa holder’s stay in Australia”.
The Tribunal numbers tell the same story. The Administrative Review Tribunal’s own migration caseload statistics for July 2026 record 1,863 active Subclass 407 visa-refusal reviews as at 31 July 2026, with 110 lodged in that month alone, plus 23 active sponsorship and nomination reviews.
Separately, the Department is running a review of the Training (subclass 407) visa program, covering the temporary activities sponsor framework, sponsor obligations, the approval processes and the risk of exploitation in workplace-based training. Its report was due to the Minister on 30 June 2026 and has not been published. It is the most likely source of the next substantive change, and we track it.
The failure modes, mapped to the provisions they breach
The activities read as productive work. Fails regulation 2.72A(16) and the “structured” and “tailored” tests in the applicable category.
The plan lacks detail. An evidentiary failure on 2.72A(16) and the category provision — not a breach of a “training plan” rule, because there is none.
The nominee is already too qualified. Fails 2.72B(2)(c) or 2.72B(3)(a): the longer the program, the less need it can be said to meet.
The activities do not match the nominee’s circumstances. Fails 2.72B(2)(e) or 2.72B(3)(c), and undermines clause 407.217.
No evidence of why the training is needed at all. Fails 2.72B(2)(a)–(b), 2.72B(3)(a) or 2.72B(4).
Supervision or capacity is thin. Fails regulation 2.72A(12) and regulation 2.60.
The plan and the applicant’s own statement disagree. Fails clause 407.217 — the delegate reads both documents.
The nomination approval expired before the visa was decided. Fails clause 407.214(c) by operation of regulation 2.75A(2)(b).
What the report contains
The nomination category, chosen and justified against regulation 2.72B, with the alternatives addressed where more than one could apply
The business, its activities, its staffing and its demonstrated capacity to deliver the training it is promising
The occupation and the tasks the nominee will perform, mapped to the ANZSCO code the nomination relies on and to the version specified for 407
The nominee’s qualifications and experience, and the specific gap the program closes — including the 12-months-in-24 evidence where regulation 2.72B(3) applies
A phased program, each phase with objectives, teaching method, duration, supervision and a named assessment point
Visible progression from observation and supervised practice to independent competence
The supervisor or mentor — full legal name, position, qualifications, years in the occupation and time committed to this trainee
Worksites, hours, remuneration and how each agrees with the offer and the nomination form
Who delivers the training, identified against regulation 2.72A(12) and IMMI 16/108
The position and employer the nominee returns to, and what the training equips them to do there
A findings table against each provision the nomination must satisfy, and a date line running from the nominee’s current visa expiry back through nomination and sponsorship lodgement
Turnaround and price
A$940 incl GST at 10 to 12 working days, A$1,070 at five to seven, A$1,550 at two, and A$1,750 for next working day. The turnaround is chosen on the form and the price updates as you choose it. Where a statement addressing clause 407.217 is needed as well, add it on the form and the combined price applies.
Processing times are the reason to start earlier than feels necessary. At the time of writing the Department’s published global figures for Subclass 407 run to roughly eleven months for half of all applications and eighteen months for ninety per cent, on a dataset refreshed monthly — and that clock only starts once the nomination has already been approved. Tell us your nominee’s current visa expiry on the form and we will work the dates backwards with you before you pay.
General information, current at October 2026. This page explains the Subclass 407 nomination and training requirements 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.
| Turnaround | Price incl GST |
|---|---|
| 10 - 12 working days | |
| 5 - 7 working days | |
| 2 working days | |
| 1 working day |
407 Training Plan Report
Complete the form and you receive a case reference immediately. Nothing is payable until we confirm scope and price in writing.
Common questions
Is a training plan legally required for a Subclass 407 visa?
Not as such. The words “training plan” appear nowhere in Part 407 of Schedule 2, in regulation 2.72A or 2.72B, or in any legislative instrument made for the visa. A training plan is the evidence by which a sponsor satisfies criteria that are legislated — above all regulation 2.72A(16), that the program is a genuine training opportunity, and the structure and duration tests in the applicable category under regulation 2.72B.
Can the sponsorship, nomination and visa still be lodged at the same time?
No. From 11 March 2026 a 407 application is only valid if the sponsor is already an approved temporary activities sponsor, the nomination has already been approved, and that approval has not ceased. The three steps now run in sequence. Applications lodged before 11 March 2026 are unaffected.
How long can a Subclass 407 visa be granted for?
Up to two years, for every category. Clause 407.511 caps the period of stay at two years whether the applicant is inside or outside Australia at grant. The twelve-month figure often quoted is the shelf life of the nomination approval under regulation 2.75A(2)(b), not the length of the visa.
How much experience does the nominee need?
For the “improving skills in an eligible occupation” category, regulation 2.72B(3)(c) requires the equivalent of at least 12 months of full-time experience in that occupation within the 24 months immediately before the nomination. The other categories have no such figure, but each requires the nominee to be appropriately qualified for the training proposed.
Does the training have to be at least 30 hours a week?
There is no hours requirement anywhere in the Migration Act, the Migration Regulations or any instrument made for Subclass 407. The 30-hour figure is a drafting convention that circulates on sponsor and agent websites. What the law requires is that the program be structured, tailored to the nominee’s needs, and no longer than those needs require.
Must the training be mostly off the job?
No — the opposite, for four of the five categories. Regulations 2.72B(2)(d), (3)(a), (4) and (5) all require workplace-based training. Only professional development under regulation 2.72B(6) requires the training to be primarily face-to-face classroom teaching. The line the law draws is between structured training and ordinary productive work, not between the workplace and the classroom.
Does the mentor have to hold particular qualifications?
No qualification, experience or supervision-ratio requirement for a trainer or mentor exists in law. But the mentor is central evidence: regulation 2.72A(12) asks who delivers the training and regulation 2.60 asks whether the sponsor can deliver on its obligations. We name the mentor in full, with their position, qualifications and years in the occupation, because a mentor identified by job title alone is one of the most common reasons a plan is questioned.
Does OSCA apply to a 407 nomination?
No. The 407 occupation instrument LIN 19/050 uses ANZSCO codes, and OSCA appears nowhere in the Migration Regulations. The 23 November 2022 ANZSCO freeze applies to regulations 2.72, 2.73 and subregulation 5.19(5) — the Subclass 482 and 186 nomination provisions — and not to regulations 2.72A and 2.72B, which govern 407.
Does the Skilling Australians Fund levy apply?
No. The Migration (Skilling Australians Fund) Charges Regulations 2018 list Subclasses 457, 482, 494, 186 and 187 exhaustively, and Subclass 407 appears nowhere in them. A 407 nomination costs A$170, with no levy, and there is no market salary rate or income threshold requirement for the visa.
Can you review a plan someone else wrote?
Yes. Send it with the form and tell us in Additional Info. We will tell you which provision each part of it is meant to satisfy, where the gaps are, and whether fixing it or starting again is faster — before you commit.
Often ordered with this
407 Training Plan + GTE Report
The training plan and the genuine temporary entrant statement written together, so the two documents agree on every date, role and intention.
From407 Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) Statement
A first-person statement addressing circumstances in the home country, the purpose of the stay, incentives to return and immigration history.
Business Plan
Market analysis, competitor landscape, organisational structure, personnel plan and financial projections, with the visa-specific overlay the category is assessed against.
Every Service, Every Price
All seventeen services with their prices and intake forms sit on one page.