No, same scenario.

It's the umbrella (457 sponsoring) company that would take the % as a management fee.

I also think there's a difference between being employed by a company that contracts you out and therefore earn a fee from the company you are being contracted too, out of which they pay your wages to what you stated previously which amounted to paying someone to sponsor you which would be illegal I think.

There's no practical difference, google '457 umbrella company'. People legitimately use them for sponsorship and they take a % of your rate as a management fee.

It is not necessarily the company that contracts you out, it's the company that receives and processes your salary as if you were working through your own ABN.

Even if it's a scenario you're not familiar with please don't suggest it's potentially illegal when it not.

Not sure who you are aiming that reply at, but as TeeTMI says the sponsoring employer cannot recover certain costs, by law. And as a respected agent she isn't going to be stating something that's not correct.

And nobody has argued with that. I've just picked up the suggestion that using one of these companies is illegal. This is unfortunate and misleading.

These companies don't recover costs, they charge an ongoing management fee.

So, are you a registered migration agent? Do you have a MARN? I'm just wondering where you got your specialized knowledge of Australian immigration law.

I comment having been through the exact process myself.

Suggesting that using a registered 457 umbrella company is illegal is nonsense and misleading, agent or not.

Hi Cubiscus

A wide variety of people read the threads and may not see the context. You are discussing one specific area on-hire contracting but that was not clear to the OP and potentially other readers at the beginning of the thread.

Your original posts suggested to the OP that a 457 sponsor could claim back their costs by taking a % of your earnings.

Whilst you mentioned contracting, the OP replied to your comments suggesting the way that they understood this was that they could pay a % of their earnings to the employer in exchange for getting a 457 visa.

It was important that the OP and other readers be aware that a 457 sponsor is not permitted to recover a range of their sponsorship costs from the person sponsored either directly or by deducting it from their earnings.


As you agree later the company does not recover their non-recoverable sponsorship costs from your earnings.

On-hire companies charge their clients/customers a rate higher than the rate that they pay the individual (be they a visa holder or Australian) and/or may charge management fees related to a variety of services that they provide to the people they supply on-hire.

I don't think people were trying to dispute that on-hire companies can sponsor as such but rather to obtain better clarity as that a specific type of circumstance not applicable to many.

Hi TeeTMI,

I think wires have been crossed here, I never suggested that a company was able to recover the 457 visa costs directly, rather their management fee effectively (and quickly) covers the cost of sponsorship.

’Effectively’ this is the exchange that happens, otherwise nobody would use a 457 umbrella company. In real terms they’ll make all those costs back and more, but through a % fee rather than a bill.

Agreed, however it may be of special interest for someone wanting to move from a 417 given their 6 month restriction.

Let’s avoid statements like this, it’s likely to mislead people and may put someone off from a legitimate immigration route.

Let’s avoid statements like this, it’s likely to mislead people and may put someone off from a legitimate immigration route

Let's not - if I misread what you were trying to say, others may too.

No let's, just because you're not familiar with the scenario you shouldn't suggest a legitimate immigration route is illegal and you're going to 'tell' DIBP.

Someone looking to move off a 417 should know all the options.

Right.

A registered agent has explained all the ins and outs of who can legally pay for what, and has clearly stated
A wide variety of people read the threads and may not see the context. You are discussing one specific area on-hire contracting but that was not clear to the OP and potentially other readers at the beginning of the thread.
If the OP is still confused about whether money can legally be deducted from his wages to pay for the visa, or for anything else, I suggest he contacts a registered agent directly.

And if anyone has any suspicions that visa fraud is taking place, then they are free to cntact DiBP. If there is no fraud, there will be no action, but if no-one with suspicions ever acted on them a lot of companies would continue to break laws, especially in regard to 457s - this has been well documneted in the last few years.