Subclass 189 Visa Cost: What the Government Charges and What Applicants Often Miss

The headline government charge

The Department of Home Affairs publishes a subclass 189 primary applicant visa application charge from AUD6,135.00. The same page qualifies that figure by stating that concessions apply in limited circumstances. The amount is therefore the published starting charge for the primary applicant. It is not described as a universal price or an all-inclusive budget for the applicant and accompanying family members.

The qualifier attached to the amount is material. “From” indicates that the applicable charge may be lower for a defined group; it does not establish that every application attracts the same figure. Nor does the primary applicant amount incorporate charges that Home Affairs identifies separately for family members, a possible second instalment and other costs.

Home Affairs’ subclass 189 page keeps those categories separate. Each family member applying with the primary applicant has a charge, family-member second instalments are dealt with separately, and applicants without functional English may attract an additional charge. The page also identifies possible expenditure on health checks, police certificates and biometrics. The published AUD6,135.00 figure should therefore be treated as one component of the relevant budget, not as a complete estimate of expenditure associated with the application.

Family members: an initial charge and a second instalment

Home Affairs states that there is also a charge for each family member who applies for the visa with the primary applicant. The cited official material does not publish a numerical amount for that initial family-member charge. The existence of the charge is clear, but its value must be confirmed through the official application process rather than inferred from the primary applicant figure.

The same page identifies the second instalment charge for family members as AUD4,885.00. This is separate from the initial family-member charge. Recording only the existence of a family charge, or relying only on the primary applicant amount, would leave both parts of the family-member charging structure incomplete.

The second instalment is the cost most often missed when a budget is built from the headline fee alone. Home Affairs expressly states that the Visa Pricing Estimator does not include it. The omission is therefore not an inference about whether a family member is travelling or applying; it is a stated limitation of the official estimating tool.

A budget for a subclass 189 application involving family members consequently has to preserve the published categories rather than collapse them into the primary applicant charge. The evidence supports an unquoted initial charge for each applicable family member and a stated second instalment of AUD4,885.00. It does not support a complete family total, because the first of those amounts is not stated in the cited material and other conditional costs may also arise.

The extra charge where functional English is not demonstrated

Home Affairs states that an applicant aged 18 years or older who has less than functional English might have to pay an extra charge. The wording covers any applicant within that age and English-language category, rather than being confined by the page to family members alone.

Home Affairs describes the English-related extra charge as the second instalment. The page separately identifies AUD4,885.00 as the second-instalment charge for family members, but its wording does not say that every applicant will incur the charge merely because an application is lodged or because the applicant is 18 years or older.

The timing is expressly conditional. Home Affairs says the charge is paid only when it asks for payment and that it asks only if it is going to grant the visa. This is not a routine lodgement charge under the stated sequence. It is also not a guarantee of grant: the payment request is conditional on the visa being granted.

For budgeting purposes, the English-related amount should remain separate from the initial visa application charge. Its liability depends on the applicant’s circumstances, and the payment request depends on a later Home Affairs decision. The official Estimator’s exclusion of the second instalment is particularly relevant to this distinction.

The concessional cost from 1 July 2026

Home Affairs states that, from 1 July 2026, a lower visa cost applies to eligible Pacific Island and Timor-Leste citizens who lodge a valid visa application. The concession is therefore tied to a defined citizenship and passport-based eligibility group, a valid application and the stated commencement date. It is not a general reduction for all subclass 189 applicants.

The Home Affairs guidance identifies the relevant countries as the Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. Eligibility must be considered against the passport held by the relevant applicant rather than inferred from nationality or location.

Family members are also eligible for the lower visa cost based on the passport of the primary applicant. Home Affairs extends that reference to a visa holder who satisfies the primary visa criteria. The stated test for family members is therefore linked to the primary applicant’s passport, not framed as an independent passport test for every family member.

The official wording identifies a lower cost but does not state its numerical value. No reduced dollar figure or discount rate can be derived from the cited material, and the starting charge of AUD6,135.00 should not be relabelled as the concession amount. Nor can a concession amount be calculated by deducting an assumed percentage or amount from the published starting figure.

The narrower wording also matters. Holding a passport from a listed country does not, by itself, complete the Home Affairs test described in the guidance; the applicant must fall within the eligible group and lodge a valid application. Family eligibility follows the primary passport rule, including the Home Affairs reference to a qualifying visa holder. The budget should therefore preserve the applicant’s actual eligibility circumstances rather than applying the concession indiscriminately.

Health checks, police certificates and biometrics

Home Affairs states that an applicant might also have to pay other costs for health checks, police certificates and biometrics. These items are separate from the visa application charge presented as the subclass 189 starting amount. The conditional word “might” is also important: the cited page does not state that every applicant will incur every listed cost.

No uniform amounts for health checks, police certificates or biometrics appear in the supplied official fee material. It would therefore be unsupported to attach an invented amount to any of those expenses or to present a fixed government total covering them. Their applicability and charges must be established through the relevant official process.

The Visa Pricing Estimator does not include these other costs. An estimate produced by that tool can therefore omit expenditure that later arises outside the quoted visa application charge. That is a scope limitation stated by Home Affairs, not a suggestion that the underlying checks or certificates are optional in every case.

Separate third-party expenses also need to be distinguished from the official visa figures. Home Affairs does not impose a uniform charge for occupational assessment, English-language testing or translation under the cited fee guidance. The relevant provider’s current price list must be checked for those expenses; the official visa pages do not provide a common amount that can be inserted into a general subclass 189 budget.

Why the estimator is not a complete budget

The Department of Home Affairs describes the Visa Pricing Estimator as a tool for estimating the charges an applicant may need to pay to lodge a visa application. That stated purpose is narrower than producing the total expenditure associated with obtaining the visa.

Home Affairs expressly says that the Estimator does not include the second instalment or other costs. The second instalment includes the family-member amount of AUD4,885.00, while “other costs” includes the possible health-check, police-certificate and biometrics expenses identified on the subclass 189 page. The tool also does not capture the separately stated third-party pricing that may be required for occupational assessment, English testing or translation.

The practical consequence is that the eventual total can be materially higher than the headline primary applicant figure. That does not mean every applicant pays the same additional amount. Family composition, concession eligibility, functional English and the applicability of other expenses all affect whether the additional categories arise.

No complete fixed total can be calculated from the cited figures alone. Home Affairs does not state an amount for the initial charge applying to each family member, and it provides no uniform amounts for health checks, police certificates or biometrics. The lower concession amount is also absent from the supplied wording, while the English-related second instalment is requested only if Home Affairs asks and is going to grant the visa.

Adding the published primary applicant charge and the family-member second instalment would not solve those omissions. Such a partial calculation would still say nothing reliable about the unquoted initial family charge, the applicable concession or the other costs that may arise. It could also obscure the different timing of the visa application charge and the conditional English-related second instalment.

The Estimator should therefore be read as a lodgement-cost estimating tool, not as an all-inclusive migration budget or a final statement of the total amount payable. Even where its output is correct within its stated scope, the amount shown is only one part of the financial picture because Home Affairs itself identifies mandatory exclusions.

A new application and the subclass 190 comparison

The subclass 189 visa application charge is re-incurred on each new application. A later fresh application must therefore be budgeted for the applicable charge again rather than treated as covered by the expense of an earlier lodgement. The starting amount remains AUD6,135.00, subject to the limited concessions recognised by Home Affairs.

That repeat-charge point is important when comparing figures across separate applications. The existence of an earlier application, or expenditure already incurred, does not turn a new subclass 189 application into a cost-free continuation. The official charging structure is attached to the new application being lodged.

For comparison, the Home Affairs subclass 190 page publishes a primary applicant visa application charge from AUD6,140.00. That figure is also a starting visa application charge rather than a complete budget. The subclass 190 page identifies the family-member second instalment as AUD4,885.00 and likewise identifies possible health checks, police certificates and biometrics as other costs.

The subclass 190 guidance also states that its Visa Pricing Estimator does not include the second instalment or other costs. Its budget limitation is therefore materially the same as the limitation disclosed on the subclass 189 page. Comparing the two primary applicant figures alone would omit the same categories of expenditure.

Home Affairs’ published amounts do not support an all-in comparison between the two subclasses. A valid comparison must distinguish the primary application charge, any initial family-member charge, the second instalment, concession eligibility, the conditional English-related charge and expenditure outside the visa fee. The difference between the two published starting figures cannot substitute for that category-by-category analysis.

Frequently asked questions

Is the lower concessional dollar figure stated in the cited Home Affairs guidance? No. Home Affairs states that a lower visa cost applies from 1 July 2026 to eligible citizens who lodge a valid application, but the supplied official wording gives no numerical concession amount. The starting figure of AUD6,135.00 should not be treated as that reduced amount.

Must every family member hold a passport from a listed country to qualify for the lower cost? Home Affairs bases family-member eligibility on the passport of the primary applicant, or a visa holder who satisfies the primary visa criteria. The page does not frame the concession as a separate listed-country passport test for each family member.

When does Home Affairs request the extra charge for an applicant without functional English? Home Affairs says it asks for the second instalment only when it is going to grant the visa. The charge is not described as automatically payable at lodgement merely because the applicant is 18 years or older.

Does the Visa Pricing Estimator include health checks, police certificates and biometrics? No. Home Affairs states that the Estimator excludes the second instalment and other costs, and it identifies those items as costs an applicant might also have to pay. No uniform amounts for them appear in the cited official material.

Does the primary applicant charge from AUD6,135.00 cover a later fresh subclass 189 application? No. The subclass 189 application charge applies again to each new application. A later budget must therefore provide for the applicable charge rather than assume that an earlier lodgement expense covers the new application.