-Oct-21-2026-01-39-55-4506-AM.jpg?width=740&height=400&name=OPINION%20(3)-Oct-21-2026-01-39-55-4506-AM.jpg)
ISSUE
Friday, October 16, 2026
Volume 18 . Issue 41
The Employment Court has clarified that New Zealand’s ban on charging workers for employment applies even when payments are made overseas, in a decision aimed at strengthening protections against migrant exploitation.
Immigration New Zealand (INZ) National Manager Risk and Verification Aaron Smith said the ruling removed uncertainty about whether New Zealand employment law covered payments made outside the country for jobs in New Zealand.
Wages Protection Act 1983 prohibits employers, or people acting on their behalf, from seeking or receiving a premium in respect of employment. However, the law’s application to payments made overseas had previously been uncertain.
In its judgment, the Employment Court ruled that the location of the transaction did not determine whether the prohibition applied. It also said the ban could cover payments made by family members, friends or other people on behalf of prospective employees, as well as payments collected by intermediaries acting for employers.
“The Court’s decision provides a legal tool to help combat this exploitation,” Smith said.
He said migrant workers paying significant sums for promises of jobs and residency in New Zealand was a recurring and widespread feature of migrant exploitation.
“It makes it clear no matter where the worker is, how much is paid, and regardless of to who, that it is illegal to charge a fee for a job in New Zealand. If you are being charged for a job, then your employer (and those working on their behalf) is committing an illegal act.”
Smith encouraged anyone who believed they had been misled or pressured into paying for job offers or visa support to contact Immigration New Zealand.
“Every piece of information helps us prevent others from being exploited,” he said.
INZ could not recover premiums paid by migrants in job scams, but had several options available to hold New Zealand employers accountable if they, or people acting on their behalf, were found to have charged migrants for employment.
Smith also urged employers and those involved in migrant recruitment to ensure their practices were transparent, met New Zealand’s employment standards and did not require migrants to pay to secure jobs.
This included monitoring offshore recruitment arrangements and the activities of third parties involved in hiring migrant workers.
“If you break the law, misuse your position, or take advantage of migrants for financial gain, including through making false job offers, there will be consequences,” he said.
The Employment Court’s decision arose from two proceedings involving a Labour Inspector and claims involving migrant workers. The Court addressed the legal question of whether the prohibition applied to overseas transactions for employment in New Zealand.
The Employment Court has clarified that New Zealand’s ban on charging workers for employment applies even when payments are made overseas, in a decision aimed at strengthening protections against migrant exploitation.Immigration New Zealand (INZ) National Manager Risk and Verification Aaron Smith...
The Employment Court has clarified that New Zealand’s ban on charging workers for employment applies even when payments are made overseas, in a decision aimed at strengthening protections against migrant exploitation.
Immigration New Zealand (INZ) National Manager Risk and Verification Aaron Smith said the ruling removed uncertainty about whether New Zealand employment law covered payments made outside the country for jobs in New Zealand.
Wages Protection Act 1983 prohibits employers, or people acting on their behalf, from seeking or receiving a premium in respect of employment. However, the law’s application to payments made overseas had previously been uncertain.
In its judgment, the Employment Court ruled that the location of the transaction did not determine whether the prohibition applied. It also said the ban could cover payments made by family members, friends or other people on behalf of prospective employees, as well as payments collected by intermediaries acting for employers.
“The Court’s decision provides a legal tool to help combat this exploitation,” Smith said.
He said migrant workers paying significant sums for promises of jobs and residency in New Zealand was a recurring and widespread feature of migrant exploitation.
“It makes it clear no matter where the worker is, how much is paid, and regardless of to who, that it is illegal to charge a fee for a job in New Zealand. If you are being charged for a job, then your employer (and those working on their behalf) is committing an illegal act.”
Smith encouraged anyone who believed they had been misled or pressured into paying for job offers or visa support to contact Immigration New Zealand.
“Every piece of information helps us prevent others from being exploited,” he said.
INZ could not recover premiums paid by migrants in job scams, but had several options available to hold New Zealand employers accountable if they, or people acting on their behalf, were found to have charged migrants for employment.
Smith also urged employers and those involved in migrant recruitment to ensure their practices were transparent, met New Zealand’s employment standards and did not require migrants to pay to secure jobs.
This included monitoring offshore recruitment arrangements and the activities of third parties involved in hiring migrant workers.
“If you break the law, misuse your position, or take advantage of migrants for financial gain, including through making false job offers, there will be consequences,” he said.
The Employment Court’s decision arose from two proceedings involving a Labour Inspector and claims involving migrant workers. The Court addressed the legal question of whether the prohibition applied to overseas transactions for employment in New Zealand.
Leave a Comment