New Zealand has a rather interesting relationship with immigration. We need migrants to fill skill shortages, support businesses, contribute to our economy and, increasingly, help fund our international education sector. We spend considerable time and money promoting New Zealand as an attractive destination to work, study and potentially settle long-term, competing with other countries in the process.
It is therefore hardly surprising that people around the world are interested in coming here. What is perhaps more concerning is the growing number of businesses and individuals who have recognised that this interest presents a very lucrative commercial opportunity, particularly when the people buying into that opportunity don't necessarily understand what they are getting for their money.
For some migrants, the attraction is a job offer from a New Zealand employer, often accompanied by the possibility of securing residence in the future. For others, it is an offer to study at a New Zealand education institution, with the prospect of gaining a qualification, accessing post-study work rights and potentially progressing towards residence.
Both are perfectly legitimate routes into New Zealand, provided the rules are followed and the opportunities are genuine.
However, recent developments involving the Employment Court, Immigration New Zealand (INZ) and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) suggest that in some corners of these industries, the commercial opportunity may have become rather more important than the interests of the people being recruited. When immigration becomes a product, there is always a risk that someone will become more interested in making a sale than delivering what was promised.
Jobs for Sale
Earlier this month, the Employment Court delivered an important decision concerning the practice of charging migrant workers substantial sums of money in exchange for employment in New Zealand. Under section 12A of the Wages Protection Act 1983, employers and people acting on their behalf are prohibited from seeking or receiving payments from workers in exchange for employment. This is commonly referred to as charging an unlawful employment premium.
The difficulty has been that many of these transactions occur overseas, well before the migrant arrives in New Zealand. Payments are made to recruitment agents, intermediaries or individuals supposedly connected to New Zealand employers, often with the understanding that the money will secure a job offer and provide a pathway to a visa.
There had been legal uncertainty over whether New Zealand's prohibition extended to payments made entirely offshore. In its decision of 8 October 2026, the Employment Court confirmed that it does. The Court made it clear that the important connection is the employment in New Zealand, not the country in which the money changes hands. The prohibition can also extend to payments collected by individuals acting on behalf of an employer.
The Court was determining a preliminary legal question rather than deciding whether the defendants in the proceedings had actually breached the law. Nevertheless, the clarification is significant. Essentially, moving the payment to another country does not magically make the transaction legitimate.
The decision also highlights a much larger problem that plagued our immigration system in the post-Covid border opening and work visa surge.
For many people considering migration, securing a New Zealand job is the most difficult part of the entire process. There may be hundreds of applications for a single vacancy, employers can be reluctant to recruit offshore, and immigration policy places considerable importance on having genuine employment. That creates demand, and wherever there is demand, someone will eventually work out how to make money from it.
We have seen situations across the migrant employment market where workers are reportedly asked to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the promise of a job. Sometimes the employment is genuine, sometimes it is short-lived, and sometimes the promised opportunity turns out to be considerably less “real” than the migrant was led to believe.
The financial consequences can be devastating. Families borrow money, sell assets or exhaust their savings to fund the move. When the employment arrangement fails, the migrant may be left without sufficient income, without a viable immigration pathway and carrying debt that could take years to repay. Of course, not every recruitment agent or employer is involved in this behaviour. Most employers recruiting migrants are simply trying to fill genuine vacancies, and reputable recruitment businesses provide a valuable service.
There is also an important distinction between paying for legitimate immigration advice or services and paying someone to secure employment. The two are not the same thing. However, employers who use overseas recruitment agents need to understand what those agents are doing, what they are charging and what promises they are making to prospective employees. Simply claiming ignorance when something goes wrong is unlikely to be a particularly comforting explanation, especially when significant sums of money are involved.
The underlying problem is that the migrant may not simply be purchasing a job. They may believe they are purchasing a future in New Zealand.
Education for Sale
New Zealand's international education sector is an important part of our economy. International students contribute substantial revenue through tuition fees, accommodation, living expenses and the wider economic activity associated with their presence. Many institutions provide excellent education, internationally recognised qualifications and valuable opportunities for graduates.
However, international education also operates in an increasingly competitive global market, and New Zealand is actively seeking to attract more students. As a consequence, the opportunity to study here is not always marketed simply as an educational experience.
For many prospective students, particularly those considering postgraduate qualifications, the attraction includes the possibility of working in New Zealand after completing their studies and, potentially, securing residence. There is nothing inherently wrong with that longer-term goal. Studying in New Zealand can be a perfectly sensible part of a longer-term immigration strategy.
The problem begins when the immigration opportunity becomes the primary product and the educational qualification becomes little more than the glossy packaging. Recent reporting has raised concerns about standards within parts of the private tertiary education sector, including questions over English-language entry requirements, academic preparedness and whether students are being recruited into programmes they are realistically capable of completing.
On 29 October, RNZ reported that NZQA had issued a compliance notice preventing ICL Graduate Business School in Auckland from enrolling new students in its Master of Management programmes. The institution confirmed that existing students could continue studying and that its other programmes remained unaffected.
Importantly, NZQA has not publicly disclosed the specific reasons for that action, however INZ are now asking former ICL graduates to provide English tests where they would otherwise be exempt. You can draw your own conclusions from that, but it is clear that there are issues brewing and its not isolated to just this one institution.
Nevertheless, the NZQA intervention sits within a broader period of increased scrutiny of international student recruitment and education providers. NZQA rules require non-university tertiary providers to verify that international students have the English-language proficiency necessary for their programmes. There are various acceptable ways of demonstrating that ability, and an IELTS test is not compulsory in every situation. However, the underlying obligation remains.
A student enrolling in a master's programme should have a reasonable ability to understand the material, participate in academic discussions, complete assessments and demonstrate the knowledge required to obtain the qualification. That would seem a fairly basic expectation of higher education, although apparently it is worth putting in writing.
The commercial pressures are not particularly difficult to understand. International students pay substantial tuition fees, and education agents frequently receive commissions for successfully recruiting them. NZQA's own guidance acknowledges that these commissions are commonly calculated as a percentage of tuition fees.
There is nothing improper about this arrangement. Education agents perform an important role in connecting students with institutions. But the financial incentives do need closer scrutiny and transparency, which is something I have been very vocal about.
If an agent earns a commission when a student enrols, and an institution receives tuition fees when that student commences study, there is an obvious commercial incentive to maximise enrolments. The longer-term question of whether that student will succeed academically, obtain meaningful employment or achieve their immigration ambitions may not carry quite the same immediate financial reward. That is where the system needs to be particularly careful.
A student who spends considerable money on a qualification they are poorly equipped to complete is not simply making an unfortunate academic decision. They may have relocated their family, abandoned employment overseas and committed their financial future to a plan that was never particularly realistic. And unlike a faulty product purchased from a shop, there is no straightforward returns counter for a failed immigration strategy.
On 27 October 2026, INZ introduced changes strengthening the assessment of English-language ability as part of determining whether applicants can genuinely undertake their intended studies. INZ also expanded its ability to suspend student visa processing where concerns about an education provider's compliance remain unresolved.
At the same time, unlimited in-study work rights were removed for new master's-by-research student visa applicants, reinforcing the principle that the primary purpose of a student visa is education rather than employment.
These changes reflect a growing concern about the integrity of the student visa system and the need to ensure that applicants are genuine students undertaking genuine programmes.
INZ has also reported increasingly sophisticated fraudulent student visa applications, including altered financial documents, recycled evidence and misleading information submitted through recruitment networks.
It is important to recognise that the responsibility does not sit entirely with education providers. Some applicants knowingly participate in questionable arrangements, while others may be misled by agents or have inaccurate documentation submitted without fully understanding what has happened.
Genuine students can also become collateral damage when scrutiny increases across particular recruitment markets. None of this means that international education is fundamentally flawed or that students seeking post-study employment are doing anything wrong.
It does, however, raise an uncomfortable question. Are we recruiting international students primarily because we believe they will benefit from a New Zealand education, or because they represent a reliable source of revenue?
Ideally, the answer should be both. But when the financial incentives become too heavily weighted towards securing enrolments, educational standards and student welfare can become secondary considerations.
Selling the Opportunity, Not the Guarantee
The connection between these employment and education issues is not that they involve the same issues or conduct. Charging an unlawful employment premium is prohibited by law, while charging tuition fees for a legitimate qualification is perfectly acceptable. The connection is the vulnerability of people who are investing substantial amounts of money in the hope of building a future in New Zealand.
Whether it is a worker paying an overseas intermediary for a job offer or a student paying significant tuition fees after being sold an overly optimistic immigration pathway, the underlying risk is much the same. The person making the promise may receive their money immediately. The person relying on that promise may not discover the reality for several years.
New Zealand has every reason to encourage skilled migration and international education. Both contribute significantly to our economy, and many migrants and international graduates go on to build successful lives here. But we should also be prepared to question commercial practices that place financial gain ahead of genuine opportunity.
Employers need to take responsibility for the recruitment arrangements operating on their behalf. Education institutions need to ensure students are academically prepared, appropriately supported and given realistic information about their future prospects. Recruitment agents need to understand that selling access to New Zealand carries responsibilities beyond collecting commissions.
Migrants and students also need to approach these opportunities with a degree of caution. A job offer does not guarantee residence, a master's degree does not guarantee employment, and a glossy brochure with photographs of Auckland's waterfront is not an immigration strategy.
Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with businesses making money from immigration-related services, provided they are delivering something genuine, lawful and worthwhile. The problem arises when the promise of a better future becomes more valuable to the seller than the actual outcome is to the person buying it.
New Zealand should be selling genuine opportunities, not false hope.
Because when the product being sold is someone's future as well as the future for their family, the consequences of getting it wrong are considerably more serious than a disappointed customer.
Until next week.
