‘Common language’ and proficiency tests: a critical examination of registration requirements for Australian registered migration agents

Smith-Khan, L

‘Common language’ and proficiency tests: a critical examination of registration requirements for Australian registered migration agents

Smith-Khan, L

Permalink

Publisher:: Informa UK Limited
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Griffith Law Review, 2021, pp. 1-25
Issue Date:: 2021-01-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

The embargo period expires on 9 Jul 2022

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted Manuscript VersionAdobe PDF (357.96 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Smith-Khan, L https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3551-221X
dc.date.accessioned	2021-12-02T00:02:17Z
dc.date.available	2021-12-02T00:02:17Z
dc.date.issued	2021-01-01
dc.identifier.citation	Griffith Law Review, 2021, pp. 1-25
dc.identifier.issn	1038-3441
dc.identifier.issn	1839-4205
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/152020
dc.description.abstract	Registered Migration Agents (RMAs), the practitioners who assist with Australian visa applications and appeals, play a crucial role in navigating these complex legal procedures. RMAs’ registration requirements, including those relating to English language proficiency (ELP), have thus garnered much attention, leading to government-commissioned reviews and inquiries, and amendments to regulations. The most recent changes have attracted scrutiny by the Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, due to the unequal burden to prove ELP placed on different applicants based on their backgrounds. However, these new requirements ultimately came into force without the government satisfying the Committee that they were human rights-compliant. This article examines the most recent ELP rules for RMAs and the Immigration Minister’s justifications for these. Drawing on sociolinguistic scholarship, it finds that rules requiring general ELP tests, and categorically exempting certain applicants from testing, rely on problematic assumptions about the nature of language, and are therefore unnecessarily discriminatory. Given the government aims to ensure specific communicative competencies within the migration advice setting, the analysis concludes that these specific competencies should be the focus of any required assessment.
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Informa UK Limited
dc.relation.ispartof	Griffith Law Review
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1080/10383441.2021.1900031
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccess
dc.subject	1801 Law
dc.title	‘Common language’ and proficiency tests: a critical examination of registration requirements for Australian registered migration agents
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.for	1801 Law
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	true
utslib.copyright.embargo	2022-07-09T00:00:00+1000Z
dc.date.updated	2021-12-02T00:02:15Z
pubs.publication-status	Published online

Abstract:

Registered Migration Agents (RMAs), the practitioners who assist with Australian visa applications and appeals, play a crucial role in navigating these complex legal procedures. RMAs’ registration requirements, including those relating to English language proficiency (ELP), have thus garnered much attention, leading to government-commissioned reviews and inquiries, and amendments to regulations. The most recent changes have attracted scrutiny by the Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, due to the unequal burden to prove ELP placed on different applicants based on their backgrounds. However, these new requirements ultimately came into force without the government satisfying the Committee that they were human rights-compliant. This article examines the most recent ELP rules for RMAs and the Immigration Minister’s justifications for these. Drawing on sociolinguistic scholarship, it finds that rules requiring general ELP tests, and categorically exempting certain applicants from testing, rely on problematic assumptions about the nature of language, and are therefore unnecessarily discriminatory. Given the government aims to ensure specific communicative competencies within the migration advice setting, the analysis concludes that these specific competencies should be the focus of any required assessment.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/152020