Does Australia's Points Test Choose the Right Migrants? New Research Suggests a Better Way

News · 2026-09-03 · 6 min read

In Australia, almost every argument about migration ends up in the same place. Are too many people coming, or too few? It is a fight about numbers. But a more important question is rarely discussed. Among the migrants Australia does accept, is it really choosing the people most likely to do well?

New research says the answer is no. The researchers studied tax, Census and visa records across three decades. They found that Australia's skilled migration points test, the tool that decides who receives permanent residency, is rewarding the wrong qualities. At the same time, it often ignores the qualities that really predict how much a migrant will contribute to the economy over the long term.

This test shapes the country's future workforce, its tax base and its mix of skills. So this blind spot is an expensive one.

If you are planning to work in Australia from Indonesia, or from anywhere else, it helps to know how this debate may shape the system in future.

Designed for Applicants of the Past

The points test was created decades ago. Back then, the usual applicant lived outside Australia and applied to migrate from the very beginning. The system does not work like that anymore. Today, most points-tested visas go to people who are already in Australia. Many of them are former international students moving from a study visa toward permanent residency.

At the same time, a large and growing group of people are stuck moving from one bridging or temporary visa to another while they wait. This is hard for the migrants. It also adds pressure on housing, public services and infrastructure, which were never planned for so many people waiting in this way.

Most of the problems begin with this mismatch. The points test was built for one purpose but is now used in a very different way.

Points That Do Not Match Real Results

The researchers compared tax results with visa pathways from the early 2010s up to 2022. What they found is uncomfortable for policymakers. Several criteria that currently give applicants points have little or no link with how well migrants actually do economically. Some are even linked with worse results.

These criteria include:

credentials in a community language;
studying in a regional area;
"professional year" programs;
specialist qualifications outside the main regulated fields;
having studied at an Australian university.

The pathway for international students looks especially weak. Migrants who first came on a student visa and later moved through the points system usually earn less. They are also much more likely to work in jobs below their qualification level than migrants who came through other routes.

Put simply, a visa category meant to reward "local knowledge" and settling in may really be a slow and costly detour for many applicants. It is also a cost for the system that pays for it.

Deeper Problems in the Design

Some people may think the answer is simple: change a few point values and the job is done. But the real problems go deeper. They are part of the structure.

Flaw 1: the wrong balance of points. Some qualities have strong evidence behind them. These are age, education, English proficiency and relevant work experience. Yet they receive fewer points than their real predictive power deserves. Meanwhile, criteria with low value still earn points.

Flaw 2: one scale for every job. The same point scale is used for very different labour markets. It works fairly well for regulated professions such as healthcare, where a qualification leads clearly to a job. It works badly for fields like engineering and business. In those fields, networks, local hiring habits and fitting the market matter more than a checklist.

Flaw 3: ignoring useful information. Migrants who already work in Australia are scored with the same blind criteria as people applying from overseas for the first time. This happens even though there are years of real, visible performance data about the workers already in Australia. That valuable signal is wasted.

Reform Ideas From the Researchers

There is more than one possible fix. The research offers two serious reform options. Each one has a different balance between keeping things simple and making a big impact.

Option 1: tidy up the current system. Remove the categories that predict nothing. Give more weight to the qualities with real evidence behind them: age, education, English proficiency and Australian work experience. This option is easier to introduce. It adjusts the system rather than rebuilding it, but it would still improve outcomes in a meaningful way without changing the whole structure.

Option 2: divide the pathway into two. This option is bolder, and it could bring bigger benefits. It puts applicants into two separate streams, depending on whether they already work in the Australian labour market:

A skills-based stream for applicants overseas and recent graduates who are not yet working in Australia. It would use a traditional points model focused on age, education and English. But it would concentrate on occupations where the evidence shows that migrants without local experience really do find skilled work. These are mostly regulated fields, such as medicine.
A labour-market-experience stream for temporary visa holders who already work in their nominated occupation. They would be judged mainly on age and on their proven Australian earnings over the previous two years. This rewards people who have already shown what they can do in the local market.

This second stream mixes the thinking behind employer sponsorship with the flexibility of a points system. But it is based on something much more reliable than certificates on paper: real, proven performance in Australia.

Effects Across Migration and Education

A better points test is more than a small administrative clean-up. It would affect the whole migration and education system:

The permanent migrant intake would move toward people more likely to find skilled jobs and pay more tax.
It would reduce "visa chasing", where people choose what to study to collect points, rather than for real career or educational value.
Migrants and advisers would get much clearer direction. Either build real strength in a regulated occupation that is in demand, or prove yourself directly in the Australian labour market. There would be no more guessing about which extra credentials might add enough points.

Discussion about migration in Australia often focuses only on volume. How many people? How fast to cut? How fast to grow? This view misses the tool with the biggest long-term benefit. The key is not how many migrants are accepted, but how well they are chosen. Getting this right depends less on politics and more on using data that already exists. Over time, it could be worth billions in productivity and tax revenue.

What This Means for Your Plans

These are research ideas, not new rules, so the current points test still applies today. The lesson for job seekers is still useful. Strong English, good education and real work experience are the qualities the research values most. If you are preparing for jobs in Australia for Indonesians, an English test such as IELTS or PTE may be needed for your visa, so it is worth planning for early.

#australia skilled migration #points test reform #australian permanent residency #skilled visa australia #migration policy australia #points-tested visa #australia immigration reform #skilled independent visa 189 #international student visa pathway #australia work visa points #migration and productivity australia #temporary visa backlog australia #employer-sponsored visa australia #australia migration program 2026 #skilled worker visa criteria