407 Training Plan Template & Requirements 2026

A guide to what makes a compliant 407 Training Plan under the current rules

MARN 1576536 · Verifiable at mara.gov.au

What is a 407 Training Plan?

A 407 Training Plan is the document that sits at the centre of a Subclass 407 nomination. It sets out, in writing, the workplace-based occupational training that an approved sponsor will deliver to a named nominee. Without an approved nomination — and the Training Plan is the part of the nomination the Department scrutinises most closely — the visa application cannot succeed.

The plan is a sponsor obligation, not a nominee obligation. The sponsor is the legal author of the training. The Training Plan must demonstrate that the training is structured, supervised, genuinely needed by the nominee in their occupation, and tied to identifiable learning outcomes. The Department's nomination decision turns on whether the case officer is satisfied of those elements on the documents as lodged.

The statutory mechanism is paragraph 140GB(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (nomination of a program of occupational training) read with Migration Regulation 2.72 (criteria for approval of a nomination) and Migration Regulation 2.75A (cessation of nomination approval). Subclass 407 nominations are also subject to the policy and instrument framework that applies at the time the nomination is decided.

Who can sponsor — and why 407 is not SBS

The sponsor for a 407 nomination must hold a current approval as a Temporary Activities Sponsor (TS), or be a Commonwealth Government agency where that limited pathway applies. A business that already holds Standard Business Sponsorship (SBS) for the Subclass 482 or 186 still has to be separately approved as a TS to sponsor a 407 nominee — SBS does not authorise 407 sponsorship.

This catches businesses out. It is one of the most common reasons a 407 file stalls before it really starts: a 482 sponsor assumes its existing approval covers 407 and only discovers otherwise when the nomination form rejects the entry. From 11 March 2026, with the sequential lodgement rules now in force, the sponsor approval has to be in hand before the nomination — including the Training Plan — can be lodged at all.

Training Plan template — section by section

Every compliant 407 Training Plan covers the same core ground. The Department does not publish a single mandatory form for the plan itself, but the criteria the case officer applies are stable and well-known. The following section walkthrough reflects how WIDEN structures the document. The sample text in each block is illustrative — never re-used between matters — and shows the level of specificity the Department expects.

1. Sponsor and nominee details

Identifies the parties, confirms the sponsorship basis, and ties the plan to the nominated occupation.

• Sponsor legal name, ABN, registered business address, industry, and Temporary Activities Sponsor approval reference
• Nominee full name, date of birth, current location, and (where relevant) current visa status
• Nominated occupation and ANZSCO code — the code that genuinely matches the training activities, not the closest job title
• Proposed training duration (typically 6, 12, 18 or 24 months) with a one-sentence rationale for the chosen length

2. Statement of training need

The "why" of the file. The Department's most common reason to refuse a 407 is that the training is not genuinely needed — see "genuine training need" below. This section is where that test is met or lost.

• Nominee's existing skills baseline (qualifications, prior employment, demonstrated competencies)
• The specific gap between that baseline and the requirements of the nominated occupation in Australia
• How the proposed training closes that gap — not "exposure to the Australian workplace" generically, but the named competencies the nominee will acquire
• Why this gap cannot be closed through ordinary paid employment in the nominee's home country

3. Structured training program

The body of the plan. This is what the case officer is reading for. Activities must be specific, sequenced, time-bound, and tied to identifiable learning outcomes. Generic descriptions like "the nominee will assist with day-to-day duties" do not satisfy the requirement.

• Stage-by-stage breakdown — typically weekly or monthly — of the training activities
• For each stage: the activity, the supervisor, the workplace setting, the deliverable or output, and the assessment
• Mapping of activities to recognised competency units (AQF units, industry registration competencies, or international equivalents) where applicable to the occupation
• The ratio of on-the-job training to any structured off-the-job training, with the on-the-job component clearly predominant for most occupations

Illustrative entry (one stage of a 12-month plan for an overseas-qualified chef):

4. Supervision and trainer arrangements

Names the people who will actually deliver the training and supervise the nominee, and sets out their qualifications. A plan that does not name supervisors — or names someone unqualified — is a high-risk plan.

• Primary workplace supervisor: name, role, qualifications, years of experience in the occupation
• Secondary or stage-specific supervisors where the plan rotates the nominee through different parts of the business
• Day-to-day supervision arrangements: who the nominee reports to, how often, what is observed
• Where a formal training qualification is expected for the supervisor (for example Certificate IV in Training and Assessment for occupations that involve structured assessment), evidence of that qualification

5. Assessment and progression

How the nominee's progress will be measured, and what "completion" looks like. The Department expects an assessment that is documented in writing, not "the supervisor will know when the nominee is ready".

• Stage-end assessment method (competency sign-off, practical demonstration, written test, portfolio item)
• Frequency of formal progress reviews — typically monthly or quarterly
• What happens if the nominee falls behind: remedial supervision, repeat of the stage, escalation
• The end-of-program outcome: certificate of completion, internal recognition, eligibility for a registration step, or onward employment under a different visa

6. Salary, conditions, and workplace law compliance

The plan should state the nominee's salary and conditions and confirm compliance with any applicable award. The 407 visa is not subject to the Skills in Demand income thresholds (CSIT or SSIT) — those apply to the Subclass 482 — but underpayment or sham low-pay arrangements are a common refusal trigger. A salary materially below the rate paid to comparable workers in the business invites a "not a genuine training program" finding.

7. Cost recovery and sponsor obligations

The plan should be consistent with the sponsor's obligations, in particular the prohibition in Migration Regulation 2.87 on a sponsor recovering certain costs from a sponsored person. The cost of becoming a sponsor, the cost of the nomination, and the cost of preparing the Training Plan are sponsor costs. Arrangements that pass those costs back to the nominee — whether by direct invoice, salary deduction, or a "training bond" — put the sponsor's approval at risk and can be evidence that the program is not genuine.

The "genuine training need" test in depth

More 407 nominations are refused on the genuine training need ground than on any technical defect in the plan. The test is judgement-based and policy-sensitive, which is exactly why detailed drafting matters.

The case officer is asking, in substance: could this person already do this job? If the answer is yes — if the nominee's existing qualifications and experience already match the nominated occupation — then training is unnecessary and the visa is being used as an entry pathway, not a training pathway. The plan must therefore articulate a real, non-trivial gap between what the nominee can do now and what the occupation requires in Australia, and the proposed activities must visibly close that gap.

Equally, the case officer is asking: is this training, or is it work? A plan that describes the nominee performing the ordinary duties of the role for twelve months, with the only "training" element being the presence of a supervisor, will struggle. The structured-program, stage-by-stage, assessment-led shape of the plan is what distinguishes training from employment in the Department's eyes.

The plan should also reflect that the training is occupation-specific. A generic "leadership training" plan for a hospitality role, or a "business familiarisation" plan for a trade role, is rarely accepted. The training narrative must be tied to the ANZSCO code that the nomination identifies.

2026 sequential lodgement rules

The practical consequence for a Training Plan is that the plan cannot be lodged until the business has an approved Temporary Activities Sponsorship in place. Drafting the Training Plan in parallel with the sponsorship application is still sensible — it accelerates the file once sponsorship is approved — but the plan sits on the shelf until then.

Transitional position for applications already in the system at the commencement date should be confirmed on a file-by-file basis. The amending Regulations apply in relation to visa applications made on or after the commencement of Schedule 1 to that instrument.

Common Training Plan mistakes (drafting-stage)

These are recurring issues we see in plans drafted in-house or by general agents:

• Generic activity descriptions. "The trainee will learn the business" is not a Training Plan. Activities must be specific, measurable, and tied to identifiable learning outcomes for the occupation.
• Wrong ANZSCO code. Nominating a code that does not match the training activities — usually because the business chose the code on a recruitment basis rather than a training basis — leads to refusal or a finding that the plan is for a different role.
• No competency mapping. For occupations where formal competency units exist (most trades, hospitality, healthcare support), the plan should map activities to those units. Plans without this mapping read as ad hoc work plans.
• Unqualified or unnamed supervisor. The supervisor must be named and their qualifications described. A generic "the head of department" reference is not enough.
• Unrealistic timeline. A six-month plan for an occupation that ordinarily requires multi-year training will be questioned. Plans that compress the training to align with a desired stay length signal that the duration is driven by visa goals rather than training need.
• No documented assessment. "Progress will be reviewed regularly" without specifying who reviews, how, and against what criteria leaves the case officer unable to verify that the training is structured.
• Salary inconsistent with the role. A training-stipend-level salary for what is otherwise a full-time productive role suggests the "training" framing is a cost-saving exercise.

Common refusal reasons (decision-stage)

Distinct from drafting mistakes, these are the substantive findings case officers tend to make at the nomination decision:

• Not satisfied that the training is genuinely needed. The nominee's existing qualifications and experience already match the occupation, or the gap the plan identifies is not credible on the evidence.
• Program is in substance ordinary employment. The activities described are the ordinary duties of the role; the supervised-training framing does not add a structured-learning element.
• Sponsor cannot deliver the training described. The sponsor lacks the workplace setting, the supervisor capacity, or the activity flow to actually run the plan as written. Mismatches between the plan and the sponsor's evidence of operations are decisive.
• Inconsistency between Training Plan and supporting evidence. The plan says the nominee will work in section X with supervisor Y; the organisational chart, position descriptions, or supervisor's CV say something else.
• Cost-recovery concerns. Evidence — including in earlier correspondence or contractual documents — that the nominee is bearing sponsor costs (Training Plan fee, nomination fee, training bond) triggers Reg 2.87 concerns.
• Salary or workplace-law concerns. A salary below the relevant award rate, or other workplace-law concerns surfaced during processing, can lead to refusal even where the plan is otherwise sound.

Who prepares the Training Plan?

The Training Plan is the sponsor's responsibility. Some businesses prepare their plans in-house, particularly those that have run training programs before. Many engage a migration agent or specialist drafter to ensure the plan reflects current Department expectations and is internally consistent with the sponsorship evidence.

For the WIDEN service offerings — sponsorship, nomination + Training Plan, Training Plan only, and visa application — see the 407 Training Visa page. Pricing is published; service agreements are issued in writing before work commences.

Independent peer review before lodgement

For nominations that have been drafted in-house, or by an agent who is not a 407 specialist, an independent peer review by a Registered Migration Agent before lodgement can identify gaps that the drafting team has not seen. WIDEN offers this as a fixed-fee Pre-Lodgement Risk Audit — a structured 24–48 hour review of the nomination, the Training Plan and the supporting evidence against a fixed rubric (training plan compliance, genuine training need, sponsor type, scope and cost discipline). The audit is a peer review service; it does not replace the drafting agent's role and does not result in WIDEN being placed on the record for the nomination.

Frequently asked questions

Discuss your 407 Training Plan

Related

• Subclass 407 Training Visa — sponsorship, nomination & visa application services
• Pre-Lodgement Risk Audit — peer RMA review of nominations and Training Plans before lodgement
• For Migration Agents — white-label Training Plan drafting and 407 documentation
• Subclass 482 Skills in Demand — the work-visa alternative where the case is not really about training
• Department of Home Affairs — Subclass 407 Training visa (official source)

This page contains general information only and does not constitute migration advice. Migration advice for a specific matter is provided by Keshab Chapagain (MARN 1576536) after a paid initial consultation under section 43 of the Migration Agents Code of Conduct 2022, with a written service agreement issued before further work commences under section 42. The OMARA Consumer Guide is provided to all clients before the consultation begins. Outcomes of visa, nomination and sponsorship applications cannot be guaranteed (section 15). References to legislation and Department processes are correct at the date of publication; readers should verify current settings at immi.homeaffairs.gov.au before acting. Professional indemnity insurance is held as required under the Migration Agents Regulations 1998.