Part 4.
The Quiet Rise of ENS – Why Employer Nomination Is Becoming the Most Reliable Pathway to Permanent Residence

Much of the discussion among future migrants about Australian skilled migration still centres on points. Applicants compare scores, wait for invitation rounds, monitor state planning levels and occupation lists, and look for ways to increase their ranking. This focus reflects how candidates experience the system, but it does not reflect how decisions are increasingly being made.

From the government’s point of view, the emphasis has shifted towards people who are already working in Australia, already compliant with visa conditions, and already filling genuine roles. In this environment, the Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS) has quietly become one of the most reliable ways to move from temporary status to permanent residence.

This change has not come through major announcements or dramatic policy shifts. Instead, it has developed gradually through everyday decision-making, processing priorities, and the way different employer-sponsored visas now work together. ENS has not replaced other visas. Rather, it has become the stage at which temporary employment is confirmed and made permanent.

From separate visas to connected pathways

A common mistake in migration planning is to look at visas one at a time: a temporary visa (or a series of temporary visas) now, and a permanent visa later, with little thought about how they connect. In practice, employer-sponsored migration now operates as a step-by-step pathway.
Temporary visas allow the Department to see how an employment arrangement works in real life. Permanent visas are used once that arrangement has been tested and shown to be genuine and sustainable.

Seen this way, ENS is not a standalone option chosen at the end. It is increasingly the intended outcome of successful temporary sponsorship.

Where temporary employer visas fit in practice?

Subclass 482 – proving the role and the relationship
The Temporary Skill Shortage (subclass 482) visa is no longer just a way to fill short-term gaps. In practice, it allows the Department to observe how a role operates over time and whether both the employer and the employee are meeting their obligations.

During a 482 period, a detailed record is created: salary paid in line with market rates, tax and superannuation contributions, continuity of employment, and evidence that the business genuinely needs the role. By the time an ENS application is lodged, many of the key questions have already been answered through day-to-day employment.

For many workers, ENS does not represent a big step into the unknown. It is a formal acknowledgement of an employment relationship that has already been tested and accepted in practice.

Subclass 494 – the same approach, with a longer timeframe
The regional employer-sponsored visa follows the same basic logic, but over a longer period. Regional migration policy is designed not just to attract workers, but to encourage them to stay, settle, and remain employed in regional Australia.
The 494 provisional stage is not about testing intention alone. It provides time to confirm that the nominated position was, and remains, genuine, that the business remains viable, and that the worker continues to live and work in the region. Permanent residence is offered once that stability is clearly demonstrated. In effect, ENS-style thinking is built in from the start, but permanency comes later.

Subclass 400 and 407 – short visas that still matter
Short-term employer visas are often overlooked in discussions about permanent migration, but they still play an important role in how the system operates.

The subclass 400 visa is generally granted for up to six months and is used for highly specialised, non-ongoing, or time-critical work. It requires a strong business case explaining why the skill is specialised and why the work cannot reasonably be done by a local worker within the required timeframe. While it is not a pathway to permanent residence, it is often a first step that allows an employer to assess a specialist’s skills in practice.

The subclass 407 training visa is usually granted for up to twelve months, and in some structured programs up to two years. It is designed for workplace-based training and requires a detailed training plan, proper supervision, and a genuine skills-development purpose. Like the 400 visa, it involves careful scrutiny of the business case and supporting evidence.

Neither visa leads directly to ENS and, on a strict reading of policy, both can appear restrictive in terms of future migration options. In practice, however, they can allow employers to test candidates and decide whether longer-term employment and sponsorship make commercial and operational sense. 

Even short-term visas contribute to the system’s growing preference for proven working relationships rather than assumptions.

ENS as the stabilising point

Once an employment relationship has been tested through temporary sponsorship, ENS becomes the point at which that relationship is made permanent. At this stage, the focus is no longer on potential or intention, but on what has actually occurred.

Decision-makers look at the work performed, the salary paid, the length and continuity of employment, and the compliance history of the business. This reflects a broader shift towards managing risk through evidence.

Permanent residence is granted where the facts show that the arrangement works in practice.

ENS and GSM – different ways of selecting people

The difference between employer nomination and points-based migration has become clearer over time. GSM operates before employment and relies on rankings, invitation rounds, and competition between applicants who may never work in Australia. ENS operates after employment and relies on evidence created through real work.
Points show that someone meets the criteria. Employment shows that the person can do the job and that the job is genuinely needed.
This helps explain why ENS has become quieter but more predictable, while GSM remains visible but uncertain for many applicants.

Who this system now favours

This approach tends to favour people who have already demonstrated their value through work. It suits employees who have remained compliant on temporary visas and employers who want to retain staff they have already trained and invested in.

What it does not reward is guesswork, short-term planning, or the idea that simply meeting the criteria will be enough on its own.

The strategic takeaway

Temporary employer visas are no longer just stop-gap solutions. ENS is no longer rare or exceptional. Together, these visas now operate as a connected pathway.
The system is no longer focused on who looks good on paper. It is focused on who has already shown, through real work, that they can fill a genuine role in Australia. For anyone planning a long-term future here, understanding this shift is now essential.

What comes next
In the next article, Part 5 – Salary as Proof of Skill, I will look at why salary has become one of the migration system’s most important credibility checks. Concepts such as AMSR, CSIT and SSIT are often treated as technical hurdles, but in reality they are used as simple tests of whether a role is genuine and whether the skill level claimed matches the market. I will explain these salary requirements in practical terms, why guaranteed earnings matter far more than creative structuring, how underpayment can undermine an application across multiple visa types, and how salary now links the competitiveness of GSM with the integrity of employer-sponsored visas. The key message for employers is straightforward: roles need to be planned properly from the outset, not justified after the fact.

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