A New South Wales aged care provider has been sanctioned by the Australian Border Force after an investigation found migrant workers had been unlawfully charged sponsorship-related costs, with the organisation required to repay almost $120,000.
The South Coast provider had sponsored 19 workers under the Skills in Demand (subclass 482) visa, with 13 workers found to have been affected by breaches totalling $118,197.
The Australian Border Force (ABF) investigation began after a report was made through Border Watch. Officers from the Department of Home Affairs’ Sponsor Monitoring Unit subsequently conducted an unannounced visit to the provider, where they interviewed sponsored workers and company representatives.
The investigation found the provider had recovered costs associated with sponsorship from migrant workers.
Under Australia’s migration laws, approved work sponsors are prohibited from recovering, transferring or shifting certain sponsorship and nomination costs onto sponsored workers.
Two workers told investigators they had personally paid $17,449 and $19,847 respectively towards nomination and visa application costs, and provided evidence supporting their claims.
The provider acknowledged the breaches involving the 13 workers in April and subsequently repaid all affected employees in full, according to the ABF.
As a further sanction, the provider has been barred from making new sponsor nomination applications for six months.
ABF Acting Commander Tim Thorley, Field Operations and Sponsor Monitoring, said the investigation demonstrated the agency’s willingness to take action against employers that failed to meet their sponsorship obligations.
“This investigation resulted in more than $118,000 being returned to affected workers and demonstrates the ABF’s commitment to enforcing sponsor obligations and addressing exploitation within the migration program,” Thorley said.
“Employers who attempt to avoid their sponsorship obligations should expect to be detected, investigated, and held accountable.”
The ABF said it conducts targeted and unannounced compliance activities across Australia and would take action where sponsors failed to comply with their legal responsibilities.
The case highlights an important distinction between costs that can be paid by a sponsored worker and costs that must be borne by the sponsoring employer.
The ABF states that sponsors cannot ask visa holders to cover costs associated with recruiting a sponsored worker or obtaining sponsorship or nomination. This includes migration agent costs and the Skilling Australians Fund levy.
The Migration Regulations also establish a specific sponsorship obligation preventing sponsors from recovering certain costs from another person, including costs associated with becoming or being an approved sponsor, nomination costs and recruitment costs associated with a nomination.
The Skills in Demand visa, which replaced the Temporary Skill Shortage visa in December 2024, allows approved employers to sponsor skilled workers for positions they cannot fill with suitably skilled Australian workers.
The sponsored migration system is particularly important to aged care, which has relied heavily on overseas recruitment to help address workforce shortages.
The case comes amid growing scrutiny of migrant worker exploitation across Australia.
Research released by the Migrant Justice Institute in May found widespread underpayment and exploitation among temporary migrant workers. The study, based on almost 10,000 responses, found that 65 per cent of migrant employees surveyed were paid below their legal entitlements under the Fair Work Act.
More than a third of respondents were working on an Australian Business Number, while many reported other indicators of insecure or exploitative employment, including unauthorised deductions and coercive working conditions.
The NSW Anti-slavery Commissioner described the findings as evidence that migrant worker exploitation was systemic rather than limited to isolated cases.
Aged care has also faced specific concerns about the treatment of migrant workers.
A 2025 survey by the Nurses Professional Association of Australia reported allegations from migrant nurses and care workers of excessive hours, threats relating to visa sponsorship, unpaid work and other coercive practices. The allegations covered aged care workplaces in several states, including NSW.
The ABF’s latest case does not allege that the NSW provider engaged in those other forms of exploitation. Its investigation specifically concerned the recovery of sponsorship-related costs from sponsored employees.
However, the case illustrates one of the vulnerabilities faced by temporary migrant workers: the significant financial and immigration consequences that can accompany employer-sponsored employment.
The Federal Government has strengthened its approach to migrant worker exploitation in recent years.
The Migration Amendment (Strengthening Employer Compliance) Act 2024 introduced new offences targeting employers and others who use a temporary migrant worker’s immigration status to exploit them. The laws cover conduct including coercing workers to breach visa conditions, threatening workers over their visa status and using their temporary visa status to exploit them in the workplace.
The Government has also introduced stronger reporting protections for temporary visa holders who fear reprisals for reporting exploitation.
Workers can report suspected exploitation anonymously to the Fair Work Ombudsman or Border Watch, and eligible workers may be able to access a Workplace Justice visa if they need to remain in Australia while resolving an exploitation matter.
For employers, the potential consequences of breaching sponsorship obligations can include cancellation of sponsorship approval, bans on sponsoring additional workers, infringement notices, civil penalties and compliance notices.
The ABF says a corporate sponsor can face an infringement penalty of up to $87,360 for each failure in some circumstances, while civil penalties imposed by the courts can reach up to $436,800 per failure.
The agency maintains a public register of sponsors that have breached their sponsorship obligations. The register is updated periodically and records sanctions imposed since March 2015.
For the South Coast aged care provider, the immediate outcome was the repayment of $118,197 to 13 workers and a six-month prohibition on making new sponsor nomination applications.
The ABF said the case should serve as a warning to the aged care sector that sponsorship obligations cannot be shifted onto the workers whose employment depends on them.
“This case has put the aged care sector on notice,” the ABF said.
