What are the criminal penalties for migrant worker exploitation in Australia in 2026?

In 2026, serious, deliberate or repeated migrant worker exploitation carries up to 5 years' jail and a $131,040 fine; here is when a fine escalates.

Published: 11 October 2026

Employers and labour hire organisations that seriously, deliberately or repeatedly exploit temporary migrant workers face criminal prosecution under the Migration Act 1958, with a maximum of five years' imprisonment, a fine of up to $131,040 (360 penalty units), or both. Separately, breaching a prohibition once you have been declared a prohibited employer is itself a prosecutable offence carrying the same maximum of five years' jail, a fine of up to $131,040, or both. These figures come from the Australian Department of Home Affairs page Information for employers and labour hire organisations, which also sets out the civil and administrative consequences that can be applied alongside criminal charges. This article explains the framework in general terms; it is not advice on any particular business or set of facts, and the published legislation and current official pages, together with professional advice where the exposure is material, should govern any decision about your own circumstances.

What conduct counts as exploitation in the first place?

The legal test is tied to immigration status being used as leverage. It is unlawful to use a person's visa situation to take advantage of them or to treat them badly at work, whether the conduct happens at a work site or arises from non-work matters connected to the workplace, such as accommodation or meals.

Under the Department's guidance, it is against the law for employers to:

keep a migrant worker's passport
threaten to cancel a visa
threaten to report a worker to immigration authorities
pressure someone to work more hours than their visa allows
threaten future visa applications
force migrant workers to live in unsafe, dirty or crowded housing as part of their job
sexually harass a migrant worker
underpay a migrant worker
ask a migrant worker to repay sponsorship, nomination and/or recruitment costs
ask a migrant worker for money in exchange for visa sponsorship.

Two features make this list harder to manage than ordinary workplace law. The first is that the protection applies to someone doing paid or unpaid training, someone who has broken their visa rules, and someone who does not hold a valid visa at all — the worker's own lack of status is not a defence for the employer. The second is that using a labour hire organisation does not transfer these obligations away; the host business still has to know the law and ensure workers are treated fairly.

At what point does a fine become a criminal charge?

Liability escalates along two axes: what you did, and how you did it. The Department distinguishes ordinary breaches of the Migration Act — which may attract a direction to take or stop certain action, a fine, or a declaration as a prohibited employer with the business name published on the Australian Border Force website — from breaches that are serious, deliberate or repeated. It is the second category that carries the five-year jail maximum and the $131,040 fine cap, alongside any civil penalty.

In practical terms this means the escalation trigger is rarely one isolated payroll error. It is conduct that shows intent, persistence, or the deliberate use of visa status as pressure: telling a worker their visa will be cancelled unless they drop a complaint, holding a passport, charging for sponsorship, threatening a future nomination, or continuing a known breach after it has been raised with you internally.

How do the new offences stack on top of conduct that was already illegal?

The Department's Case studies page illustrates how a single workplace dispute can carry several layers of liability at once. Each scenario below is drawn from that official page.

A student who works past their limit. Consider a scenario set out by the Department: an international student working in a petrol station is rostered beyond the 48 hours a fortnight his student visa allows, and is also underpaid. When he raises the underpayment, his manager tells him to stay quiet or be reported for breaching his visa conditions — meaning his visa may be cancelled. Allowing someone to work in breach of their visa conditions was already unlawful, and so was underpaying them. The additional exposure comes from pressuring him to break his work conditions, which is a distinct breach under the new measures.

A worker supplied without a valid visa. A labour hire company sends a worker whose tourist visa has expired to horticulture clients, knowing she is unlawful, then pays her less than her co-workers. When she complains, the company tells her she should not have been working in the first place and threatens to report her. Allowing her to work without a valid visa and underpaying her were already breaches; the new offences mean additional criminal charges can be laid on top.

Sponsorship used as leverage over a visa outcome. A sponsored IT worker complains that her manager makes unwanted sexual comments and touches her when they speak. Her boss responds that causing trouble will end any chance of a permanent visa nomination. Sexual harassment is against the law, and using her visa status to exploit her can add criminal charges.

The pattern across all three is worth noting for compliance planning: the threat, not just the underlying harm, is what generates the extra charge.

What does sponsorship non-compliance cost separately?

Exploitation offences sit alongside an entirely separate enforcement track. The Department's Sponsor responsibilities page sets out what follows when an approved sponsor fails to meet sponsorship obligations, and more than one sanction can be imposed at the same time.

Consequence	Maximum exposure
Infringement notice per failure	For example, $79,200 for a body corporate or $15,840 for an individual
Civil penalty imposed by the courts, per failure	Up to $396,000 for a body corporate and $79,200 for an individual
Other sanctions	Cancellation of sponsorship approval, bans on sponsoring further workers or making future sponsorship applications, compliance notices, or a legally binding Enforceable Undertaking

A sponsor penalised for exploiting migrant workers risks having the business name or a personal name published on the register of sanctioned sponsors maintained by the Australian Border Force. Because both tracks can run over the same facts, treating an exploitation allegation only as a sponsorship-obligation issue would understate the risk.

What changes once you are declared a prohibited employer?

The prohibited employer scheme bans employers found guilty of serious breaches of the Migration Act from hiring more temporary migrant workers, and the Minister for Immigration may designate an individual or a corporation. Once designated, the business cannot employ any new temporary visa holders, although those already working for it at the time of the declaration may continue if they wish.

The prohibition period depends on the findings against the employer:

human trafficking and modern slavery — no maximum length of prohibition
a criminal offence other than human trafficking or modern slavery — up to 10 years
all other migrant worker sanctions — up to 5 years.

If a declaration is being considered, the Department sends a letter inviting you to explain why you should not be declared. Your response is considered before a decision is made, and the letter sets out the timeframe for responding and any rights to seek review once a decision has been made. Because breaching the prohibition afterwards is separately prosecutable with the same five-year maximum, the designation is best understood as a live constraint on operations rather than a past penalty.

What does defensible compliance actually look like?

The controls the Department identifies are procedural, and they are cheap relative to the penalties above. Check each potential employee's visa work conditions through the free VEVO system before engagement, with the visa holder's permission, and record the result. Under the Fair Work Act 2009, all visa holders and migrant workers have the same workplace rights and protections as other employees regardless of migration status, so pay, leave and discrimination obligations do not vary according to who holds the visa.

If you use a labour hire organisation, the Department suggests requiring the following in the contract:

use VEVO to check the visa conditions of potential workers
ensure all migrant workers are paid correctly and treated fairly under Australian law, including the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Migration Act 1958.

Existing visa holders should also be re-checked rather than assumed, because pressures about hours or roles can arise long after the hire date. Complaints deserve the same treatment internally: allowing a known grievance to sit while the worker keeps accruing breaches is the kind of repetition that moves conduct into the serious category described earlier. Complaints about pay, the use of a migrant's visa situation to threaten them, or overcrowded housing can also be raised outside the business entirely, so informal silence inside a workplace is not evidence of compliance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the maximum jail term for exploiting a migrant worker?

Employers and labour hire organisations who commit serious, deliberate or repeated breaches of the Migration Act 1958 face up to five years' imprisonment, together with a fine of up to $131,040 (360 penalty units). Breaching a prohibition after being declared a prohibited employer carries the same maximum of five years' jail and/or $131,040. Immigration detention consequences are separate; the pages above address penal outcomes only.

Is the $131,040 fine cap per breach or per worker?

The Department states the cap as the maximum fine for serious, deliberate or repeated breaches but does not specify how it applies across multiple proven breaches or multiple affected workers. It should therefore be read as a maximum per proven offence rather than a ceiling on total corporate exposure. Where several workers or several contraventions are involved, each charge carries its own maximum, subject to how the prosecution is framed.

Does underpaying a migrant worker alone create criminal liability?

Underpayment is unlawful and workplace entitlements are enforced under the Fair Work Act 2009. The criminal exposure described by the Department attaches to serious, deliberate or repeated breaches of the Migration Act, and its scenarios pair underpayment with visa-based pressure — threats to report a worker, threats about future nominations, or pressure to work beyond visa conditions. An ongoing refusal to correct known underpayment is also capable of meeting the repeated or deliberate threshold.

Is using a labour hire provider enough to remove our exposure?

No. The Department states directly that using a labour hire organisation does not free a business from its obligations to migrant workers, and both employers and labour hire organisations can face criminal charges and civil penalties. A contract requiring VEVO checks and lawful payment of workers is a mitigating control, not a transfer of liability.

Does it matter if the worker broke their visa conditions or had no valid visa?

No. The protections apply regardless of the worker's status, and it remains unlawful to exploit someone doing unpaid training, someone who has broken visa rules, or someone without a valid visa. Hiring a non-citizen who has no valid visa, or to do work contrary to their conditions, is itself unlawful for the employer.

What happens to current visa-holding staff if we are declared a prohibited employer?

Existing temporary visa holders already working for you when the declaration is made may continue if they wish. The ban applies only to hiring new temporary visa holders, for the length of the prohibition set out above. Any business or personal name publication on the register of sanctioned sponsors is a separate visibility consequence that follows the finding.