New Zealanders are currently facing one of the most challenging labour markets in recent history.
By the end of 2025, unemployment had risen to 5.3%, a nine-year high, leaving around 160,000 people out of work.
High inflation, sustained interest rates, public sector restructuring and broader recessionary pressures have combined to suppress hiring activity across many industries.
Competition for available roles is fierce, particularly for entry-level positions, with some vacancies attracting hundreds of applicants and many candidates reporting job searches lasting longer than a year.
This difficult environment is being felt not just by jobseekers. Employers are also operating under significant constraints.
Many organisations would like to hire additional staff but lack the financial certainty to do so. Recruitment decisions, therefore, carry heightened risk.
A poor hiring decision can be costly, financially, operationally and culturally, and can also expose an employer to legal risk if recruitment processes are not properly managed.
In New Zealand, employers generally retain a wide discretion in how they recruit and whom they appoint. However, that discretion is not unlimited. Two core legal constraints apply in a recruitment context.
First, employers must not advertise roles in a way that is misleading or deceptive, particularly in relation to the nature of the position or the terms being offered.
Secondly, employers must comply with the prohibition on unlawful discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993.
This obligation applies from the earliest stages of recruitment, including advertising and shortlisting, and continues through to interviews and final selection.
The requirement not to discriminate is a fundamental feature of New Zealand employment law, but beyond that, private sector employers are generally free to appoint whoever they wish.
There is no legal requirement to appoint the “best” candidate, provided the decision is not influenced by unlawful discriminatory factors.
The position is different in the public sector, where appointment decisions are subject to additional statutory obligations and merit-based principles, including the requirement that the person best suited to the role be appointed.
Less well understood, but equally important, are the legal obligations that arise once the recruitment process has concluded.
Employers collect significant amounts of personal information about candidates, including CVs, references, interview notes and psychometric assessments.
Once a vacancy has been filled, personal information relating to unsuccessful candidates should not be retained indefinitely.
Employers are required to have systems in place to manage this information lawfully and transparently.
Unsuccessful candidates must be advised what the employer intends to do with their personal information, and the employer must either return it, destroy it, or retain it with the candidate’s informed consent for a stated purpose, such as consideration for future roles.
Notably absent from New Zealand’s legal framework, is any requirement to inform candidates of the outcome of their application or to provide an explanation of the reasons they may have been unsuccessful.
In practice, many candidates experience what has become known as “ghosting”, where they progress through one or more stages of a recruitment process, sometimes to final interviews, only to hear nothing further from the employer.
While this practice may be frustrating and demoralising for candidates, it is not currently unlawful in New Zealand.
That position contrasts sharply with recent developments and trends overseas. For example, on 1 January 2026, Ontario, Canada, introduced an “anti-ghosting” law.
Under this legislation, employers with 25 or more employees are required to notify candidates of the status of their application within 45 days of a formal interview, regardless of whether a final hiring decision has been made.
Employers are also required to disclose whether a vacancy is genuinely being filled, targeting the practice of advertising so-called “ghost jobs” for roles that an organisation has no real intention of filling.
In addition, employers must disclose whether artificial intelligence is being used to screen or select candidates.
Companies that fail to comply with these requirements may face fines of up to CAD $100,000 ($125,000 NZD), although initial breaches can result in warnings or lower penalties
Research suggests that ghosting is now a widespread feature of modern recruitment, with around half of jobseekers reporting that they have been ghosted after an interview.
Similar legislative proposals have emerged in parts of the United States, alongside increasing regulation of AI-driven hiring tools, signalling a broader international shift towards transparency and accountability in recruitment.
Whether New Zealand will adopt this approach remains to be seen. At present, there is no indication of imminent legislative reform in this area.
But, even in the absence of specific anti-ghosting laws, adopting a transparent and humane approach to recruitment is ultimately likely to be a good investment for employers.
Originally published in The Post
