482 SID Work Experience: The 1-Year Rule Explained

The Skills in Demand (SID) visa, subclass 482, requires at least one year of relevant work experience, not the two years demanded under the former Temporary Skill Shortage (TSS) visa. That change took effect when the SID replaced the TSS in December 2024, and it remains one of the most practically useful reforms for younger applicants and recent skilled workers. This post explains how the 482 SID work experience rule is measured, how the period is calculated, and where applicants most often make errors.

What the one-year rule actually says

To meet the SID work experience criterion, an applicant must have worked in the nominated occupation, or a closely related occupation, for a period equating to at least 12 months of full-time work. That experience must have been gained within the five years immediately before the visa application is lodged.

The requirement sits in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994, with the detail of how work experience is measured set by a legislative instrument made under those regulations. Reading the two together matters, because the primary sources, not the plain-English summaries on any website, are what a decision-maker applies. The core elements are a minimum duration, a defined look-back period, and a link to the nominated occupation.

The reduction from two years to one year lowered a significant barrier. Under the old TSS settings, capable workers with roughly 18 months of post-qualification experience were often locked out until they crossed the two-year mark. The SID threshold recognises that a single year of genuine occupational experience is a more realistic gate for skilled roles.

Note that the work experience requirement is separate from the salary and nomination requirements. The Core Skills stream is tied to the Core Skills Income Threshold and the Core Skills Occupation List (CSOL), while the Specialist Skills stream uses the Specialist Skills Income Threshold. Meeting the work experience rule does not, by itself, satisfy those separate criteria.

How the 12 months is calculated

The experience does not have to be continuous, and it does not have to be with one employer. What matters is that the total, when converted to a full-time equivalent, reaches 12 months within the five-year window. Think of it as an arithmetic test rather than a tenure test: the question is not how long you held any single job, but how much qualifying full-time-equivalent work you can add up inside the window.

• Full-time work counts at face value.
• Part-time and casual work counts on a pro-rata basis. For example, consistent part-time work at half of full-time hours over two years can equate to roughly one full-time year.

The full-time-equivalent conversion is where most of the analytical work happens. Two variables drive it: the hours you actually worked, and the full-time benchmark for that role. Reduced hours stretch the calendar time needed to reach the equivalent of a year, so a worker on half-time hours needs proportionally longer elapsed time than a worker who was full-time throughout. Because the calculation is cumulative, applicants who moved between roles, took parental leave, or worked reduced hours can still qualify, provided the arithmetic reaches a full year of full-time equivalent work in the nominated or a closely related occupation.

The five-year look-back is a moving boundary, not a fixed date. It is measured backward from the day the visa application is lodged, so the qualifying period shifts every day. A block of experience that sits comfortably inside the window today can drift outside it if lodgement is delayed. This is a practical reason not to let an application drift once eligibility is established, and a reason to time lodgement deliberately when experience is close to the edge of the window.

”Nominated occupation or closely related field”

The experience must relate to the occupation being nominated. The Department accepts experience in a closely related occupation, which gives some flexibility where a worker’s duties spanned adjacent roles. The key test is whether the tasks performed align with the substantive duties of the nominated ANZSCO occupation.

ANZSCO remains the operative classification for migration. Occupations are matched to their ANZSCO code, and the work experience is assessed against the tasks that define that code. If your day-to-day duties do not match the ANZSCO description for the occupation on your nomination, the experience may not count, even if the job title looks similar. The reverse is also true: a modest or unusual job title does not disqualify experience if the underlying duties map to the nominated code. Substance governs, not the label an employer happened to use.

“Closely related” is where finely balanced cases turn. A decision-maker is looking at the overlap between the tasks you actually performed and the tasks that define the nominated occupation. Two roles can share a sector or a general skill set and still fail the test if the day-to-day duties diverge. The safest position is experience squarely within the nominated occupation; the closely related category is a margin, not a substitute for on-point work.

Common mistakes that cost applicants their eligibility

Counting study-based work. Work completed as part of a full-time course, such as clinical placements, practicums, or internships embedded in a degree, is generally excluded. Experience gathered after graduation while working in the field is what the Department is looking for. The distinction is whether the work was undertaken as a component of study or as employment in its own right.

Assuming any experience within the five years counts. Experience outside the five-year window does not count, however relevant it is. Experience from six or seven years ago does not count, no matter how relevant, unless more recent qualifying work brings the total across the line within the window.

Overstating the full-time equivalent. Applicants often treat part-time or casual months as if they were full-time, then find the converted total falls short of a year. Where hours were reduced, the honest conversion is the one that will survive scrutiny, and it is better to identify a shortfall early than to have a nomination refused on the arithmetic.

Poor documentation. Payslips, employment contracts, tax records, and reference letters that describe actual duties are the evidence that proves the experience. Reference letters that merely confirm a job title, without setting out the tasks performed and the hours worked, routinely fall short. Strong evidence does three things at once: it fixes the dates within the five-year window, it establishes the hours so the full-time equivalent can be calculated, and it describes duties that match the ANZSCO occupation. A reference letter that omits hours leaves the equivalent uncalculable; one that omits duties leaves the occupational link unproven.

Confusing skills assessment with work experience. Some occupations require a separate skills assessment through the relevant assessing authority. A skills assessment and the visa work experience requirement are distinct hurdles. Passing one does not discharge the other. Our skill assessment page explains how assessments fit into the wider application.

How this fits the employer sponsored pathway

The work experience rule sits inside a larger sponsorship process. An approved business first needs a standard business sponsorship, which carries a government charge of $420 (as at 5 July 2026, per the Department of Home Affairs current visa pricing). The nomination and visa application then follow, each with its own charges that vary by stream and period. Because these figures change and depend on your circumstances, confirm current amounts against the Department’s pricing page before budgeting.

For many workers, the SID is also a stepping stone. Time on a 482 SID visa can build toward permanent residence through the Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS), subclass 186. The reduced work experience threshold means eligible workers can enter the sponsored pathway sooner, then work toward the longer-term goal.

Getting the assessment right

Whether your experience qualifies is a factual question that turns on hours, dates, duties, and documentation. Errors here are expensive, because a nomination and visa application that fail on work experience can waste both time and government charges. The disciplined approach is to work backward from the four variables a decision-maker checks: is the experience inside the five-year window, do the hours convert to at least a full-time year, do the duties match the ANZSCO occupation, and does the evidence prove each of those points on its face.

Visa Plan Lawyers advises workers and sponsoring employers on every stage of the SID process, from occupation matching to nomination and visa lodgement. If you are unsure whether your work history meets the one-year rule, our team can review your position before you commit to an application. Learn more on our 482 SID and employer sponsored visas pages, or get in touch to discuss your circumstances.