Two People Doing the Same Job How a Sponsor Documents the Market Salary

An Australian company is ready to hire an overseas employee. It already has an Australian employee with a similar title, but the two salaries differ. Human resources says the difference reflects experience; the hiring manager says the overseas candidate will do more complex work. Before using that comparison in a sponsored visa nomination, the employer needs to establish whether the existing employee is genuinely equivalent and what the records show about both positions.

This is a common preparation problem because job titles are convenient while market salary evidence is specific. A title does not explain seniority, working hours, location, duties or an industrial classification. A sponsor should be able to explain why a comparison is appropriate, not merely attach another employee's contract. This guide shows how to prepare that evidence, protect personal information and identify when the employer needs a different basis for determining the annual market salary rate.

Begin with the actual proposed position

The market salary review should begin with a settled description of the job the overseas employee will perform. Record duties, reporting line, ordinary hours and workplace. Identify the level of responsibility, the technical decisions involved and any staff supervision. These facts help determine whether a current employee does equivalent work and whether the proposed remuneration reflects the correct role.

If the business has not finalised the position, a salary comparison can become circular. The manager may describe a senior role to justify sponsorship while payroll compares it with a junior employee to support a lower salary. Resolve the role first. The final contract, organisation chart and nomination description should then present the same responsibilities, rather than leaving the reviewer to choose between conflicting versions.

The Home Affairs salary requirements define the annual market salary comparison around equivalent full-time work over a year at the relevant workplace and location. Where an equivalent Australian worker exists, their relevant employment documents inform the methodology. A colleague at another pay grade with different experience is not automatically the right comparator simply because their title looks similar.

Decide whether the employee is genuinely equivalent

Compare responsibilities rather than titles. Two accountants may work in the same office, but one prepares routine accounts while the other independently manages complex consolidation and supervises staff. Two developers may use the same technology while having different levels of design authority. Those differences should be documented honestly. The employer cannot rely on similarity where it is convenient and ignore it when explaining a lower offer.

Ask the manager to identify the major tasks performed by each employee and the expected skill level. A short comparison can show which responsibilities match and where they differ. The explanation should refer to actual operational facts, such as who approves client deliverables or manages a team, rather than vague descriptions such as more valuable or better suited to the company.

Length of service alone is not a complete explanation. An existing employee may have a higher salary because their role has developed over several years, because they hold a different grade, or because of remuneration arrangements requiring further review. The employer needs to understand those facts before claiming equivalence. It should not invent a distinction retrospectively merely to justify the amount already offered overseas.

Where several employees may be relevant, the adviser should review the appropriate evidence rather than select the lowest-paid person automatically. A payroll list without role context can be misleading. The employer should explain the team structure and how each grade is used. This helps identify whether a particular worker is equivalent or whether the job has no true internal comparator.

Check the workplace and location

Salary evidence should relate to where the nominated employee will actually work. A company might have staff in central Sydney, a regional facility and an offshore service centre. Those are not interchangeable comparisons. The adviser needs to know the proposed Australian workplace and how the role is organised, including any regular client-site duties or multiple locations.

Hybrid work requires a factual explanation rather than a convenient address. If the employee is attached to a particular office but works remotely for part of the week, describe the real arrangement. If the role serves several locations, explain supervision and where the duties are performed. The market salary methodology should be applied to the actual position, with professional review where the circumstances do not fit a simple office comparison.

An overseas group company paying someone to perform similar duties does not establish the Australian market salary by itself. Its pay structure may reflect another labour market, currency and employment framework. Those documents might help explain global operations, but the nomination needs the Australian comparison required by the rules. Converting an offshore salary into Australian dollars is not a substitute for that assessment.

Identify the applicable industrial instrument

The employer should determine whether an award, enterprise agreement or other relevant industrial instrument applies to the position. This is an employment law question as well as part of salary preparation. The Fair Work Ombudsman information on awards can help employers locate the relevant framework, while uncertain coverage or classification should be reviewed by an appropriate employment professional.

A classification needs to correspond to the employee's work. The employer should retain the relevant instrument and explain why the nominated duties fit the selected level. A payroll system code may be useful internally, but it does not necessarily show how the legal classification was determined. If the position combines responsibilities, check the applicable rules rather than defaulting to the lowest possible level.

An industrial minimum is not always the complete market salary answer. Relevant employment documents may establish that an equivalent Australian employee actually earns more. The sponsor should apply the current methodology and check both the instrument and the comparator records. Meeting an award minimum does not automatically justify paying an overseas worker less than a genuinely equivalent Australian employee.

The annual earnings and market salary instrument provides the legislative methodology. Its current version should be checked for the nomination being prepared. The business does not need to turn its application into a legal essay, but its calculation should identify the evidence used and explain how the amount was obtained. That makes the final submission easier to understand and verify.

Collect the relevant employment records

For an internal comparator, collect records that establish agreed pay and actual employment arrangements. Depending on the circumstances, relevant documents may include a contract, recent payslips, the position description and industrial classification. The adviser should specify the necessary period and documents. Sending every payroll record held by the company can expose unnecessary personal data without improving the evidence.

Check that the records relate to the current role. A contract signed years ago may show an obsolete salary or grade, while current payslips reflect a promotion. If the employee's responsibilities have changed, include the document explaining the change. A coherent evidence file tells the reviewer which pay and duties are current instead of expecting them to infer the history from disconnected attachments.

Make the remuneration comparison on a consistent basis. One contract may express base salary plus superannuation; another may state a total package. Identify cash wages, fixed payments, variable incentives, compulsory contributions and non-cash benefits separately. A comparison between unlike package totals can produce the wrong market salary figure even when the business selected the correct equivalent employee.

Part-time payroll records also require care. A person's monthly pay may reflect fewer hours, leave or a change in roster. The market salary assessment concerns the required equivalent full-time annual arrangement. Ask payroll to explain the contracted hours and calculation rather than multiplying one unusually low payslip by twelve. The underlying records should support the method used.

Protect the comparator employee personal information

An overseas candidate does not normally need unrestricted access to another worker's personal contract or payroll history. The employer can provide the relevant records directly to the authorised migration professional and application team. The candidate can be told that the market salary assessment has been undertaken and what unresolved issues affect their offer without receiving unrelated personal information.

The employer should consider what redaction is appropriate with the adviser, keeping enough information for the evidence to remain meaningful. Removing essential employment facts could make a document unusable. Leaving bank details, tax identifiers or unrelated personal information visible may be unnecessary. Apply a deliberate document-handling process rather than asking a junior staff member to forward an entire payroll folder.

Limit access to people working on the nomination and store the evidence in an appropriate shared location. If external advisers need records, confirm the recipient and the agreed purpose. This is particularly useful for groups coordinating documents across countries. The file should establish the salary comparison without turning a visa application into broad disclosure of another employee's personal financial information.

Explain differences before filing

Suppose a hypothetical company offers the overseas analyst AUD90,000 while an Australian analyst earns AUD102,000. The employer should first examine whether they are equivalent. If their duties, level, hours and location are genuinely equivalent, the lower overseas offer cannot simply be justified by saying the candidate needs sponsorship. The sponsor needs to address the salary requirements using the actual facts.

If the roles differ materially, document how. Perhaps the existing employee leads a specialist team while the new employee performs narrower duties. The nominated occupation and genuine position review must also match that explanation. A company cannot portray the overseas role as equally senior for occupation purposes and substantially junior only for remuneration purposes without creating an inconsistency that requires resolution.

A genuine higher offer can resolve a pay difference if the employer is willing and able to pay it and the resulting amount meets all applicable requirements. Issue the revised contract and update the calculation. Do not rely on a side letter promising a nominal increase followed by repayment. The overseas employee should receive the salary and conditions represented in the nomination, with no hidden recovery arrangement.

The hiring manager, payroll and adviser should agree on the final comparison before the nomination is submitted. If one department considers the employees equivalent and another does not, record the operational basis for the final decision. Unresolved disagreements are a signal to examine the role further. They should not be concealed by choosing whichever document supports the preferred amount.

When there is no equivalent Australian worker

A company may genuinely have no equivalent Australian employee at the relevant workplace and location. It should explain that fact, rather than nominate a loosely similar person as a comparator. The applicable methodology then depends on the industrial framework and relevant external information. A new role or highly specialised position often requires more careful market evidence than an established position with a clear internal equivalent.

External evidence should match the work, seniority and location. Suitable advertisements may help when they describe comparable responsibilities and specify salary arrangements. Remuneration information from a reputable source may be relevant if sufficiently specific. The employer should explain why each source relates to the position instead of attaching a broad national salary range for everyone with the same keyword in their title.

Avoid mixing incompatible figures. An advertisement stating a package including superannuation cannot be compared directly with a cash salary figure without understanding the difference. A senior leadership range may be inappropriate for an individual contributor. A survey from an earlier period may require context. The adviser should identify what the sources establish and where additional evidence is necessary.

The company should retain the original evidence, including publication details, position descriptions and the salary wording. A screenshot cropped to show only the highest or lowest number loses useful context. The goal is to support a defensible determination, not to assemble a collection of favourable figures. If the evidence points to a higher market amount than the offer, the employer needs to address that result.

Keep the threshold and market salary calculations distinct

For the current nomination period, Core Skills uses AUD79,423 and Specialist Skills uses AUD146,576. These amounts apply to nominations lodged from 1 July 2026 to 30 June 2027. The employer should use the relevant threshold alongside the correctly determined market salary. Paying a professional slightly above an income threshold does not establish that the role's Australian market rate is equally low.

Imagine a hypothetical Core Skills role with a properly determined annual market salary of AUD110,000. An offer of AUD85,000 exceeds the current Core Skills threshold but remains below that market amount. The business should not describe the nomination as salary-compliant on the strength of the threshold alone. The two calculations answer different questions and need to be satisfied together where the requirements apply.

Threshold indexation and employment pay changes should be tracked separately. A comparator's annual increase may affect the current employment evidence, while the government threshold changes according to its own timetable. If nomination preparation takes several months, check whether the proposed employee's offer, relevant comparator records or lodgement period have changed. An earlier calculation should not be carried forward without reviewing those inputs.

Deal with a recent promotion in the comparator team

A recent promotion can explain why payroll and the manager appear to disagree about an internal employee. The person may still appear under an old title in one system while their salary and responsibilities have changed. Obtain the promotion date, current description and revised remuneration. The adviser can then determine whether the person remains equivalent to the proposed employee or now occupies a different level.

If the equivalent position has recently been vacated, retain the relevant historical records but ask whether they establish the current market salary under the applicable methodology. A former employee's contract should not be described as a current employee record. Explain the vacancy, any change in duties and what additional evidence is needed to support the present offer.

A practical review meeting for the sponsor

Arrange a focused meeting between the hiring manager, payroll and the migration adviser. Bring the settled role description, location, proposed remuneration and details of potential equivalent employees. Ask whether the selected comparator is genuinely equivalent, which instrument applies and what evidence remains outstanding. This can resolve the method before the business spends time collecting irrelevant external surveys.

Record decisions in a short internal note. It should identify the nominated role, comparator or external method, relevant documents and any salary revision required. Assign a person to obtain each missing item. The note is useful because personnel involved in preparation may change, particularly in a large group. It should remain a factual record of the assessment rather than a predetermined justification for an offer.

After submission, keep employment records accurate and raise material changes with the appropriate adviser. A promotion, reduced salary, different duties or transfer within a group can create questions beyond the original market salary file. Sponsorship responsibilities continue during employment. The employer should make a review part of its personnel change process rather than treat visa compliance as something completed once at hiring.

Questions about equivalent worker evidence

Is an identical title enough to establish equivalent work

No. The review should compare actual duties, responsibility, experience level, hours and workplace. Two employees can share a title while holding different grades or performing substantially different work. The manager should explain those facts with the relevant position descriptions and organisation structure. If the differences are important, the adviser may need another comparator or a different market salary methodology rather than simply accepting the shared title.

Can the employer use its lowest paid Australian employee

Only if that person is genuinely the appropriate equivalent under the applicable rules. The employer should not select someone simply because their pay makes the proposed offer easier to support. Explain the team grades and duties, and allow the adviser to assess the correct evidence. A comparison with a junior employee can be misleading where the nominated role actually requires greater responsibility or experience.

Must the overseas applicant receive the other employee contract

The relevant application team needs appropriate evidence, but that does not mean the applicant needs unrestricted personal payroll information. The employer can coordinate necessary records directly with authorised professionals and explain the result to the candidate. Any redaction should preserve the facts required for assessment. Use a controlled document process so the salary evidence remains useful without exposing unrelated personal details.

What if no Australian employee performs the same work

Explain the absence of a true equivalent and apply the appropriate methodology using the industrial instrument and relevant external evidence as required. The evidence should match the role's duties, level and location. A generic salary survey is not automatically sufficient. A new position deserves an honest explanation of its circumstances rather than a forced comparison with an employee whose work is materially different.

Does exceeding the Core Skills threshold settle the market salary issue

No. The threshold and annual market salary are separate elements. If the appropriate market salary is higher, an offer exceeding the threshold can still be inadequate. Have payroll and the adviser review the actual calculation and the current nomination period. The employee should understand what the employer has agreed to pay, while the sponsor should retain evidence supporting both the relevant threshold and market comparison.

Prepare a salary file that matches the real job

A useful first review needs the job description, proposed location, remuneration breakdown and a factual description of any potential equivalent Australian employee. The adviser can then identify the required comparator documents and industrial framework. This produces a more coherent file than collecting generic salary charts before deciding what the overseas employee will actually do.

Contact PremierVisa in Hong Kong to discuss coordinating your sponsored employment documents. PremierVisa's Hong Kong and Shenzhen teams can help organise applicant records and employer communication, with Australian migration and employment questions referred for appropriate professional assessment. Establishing the correct role and salary evidence early helps both parties understand whether the proposed offer is ready for the next stage.