English Language & Visas
English language and more specifically the testing of it, as part of the visa process has surfaced once again, amongst the migrant grapevines and rumour mills, with renewed calls from various parts of the migrant community to lower the standard from where it currently sits. Logically most advisers tend to favour any petition for lowering anything as it potentially makes more people eligible and of course the migrant community would have it abandoned all together.
I might be in the minority with my views on this and potentially this article will be a little controversial, but as someone with plenty of experience dealing with migrants from all over the world, and with varying degrees of English fluency, I do have a few things to say on the subject. To rattle the cage right away, I am not at all in favour of lowering the current English testing standards and I think most of the arguments for doing this, tend to be based on a commercial or personal advantage as opposed to building a more robust immigration system. I also think there are some pretty radical (click-bait) type arguments circulating as to why we might need to lower the standard, aimed at gaining followers or clients as opposed to making any sort of logical sense..
However I do agree with some of the comments out there, in that I think there is room to broaden the scope of who we exempt from testing, given the current exemptions, which generally rely on where you come from, haven’t been reviewed in a very long time. This could be modernised, to accommodate more countries and applicants but for the rest, our current testing levels, at least in my view, shouldn’t be tinkered with.
In simple terms we do need a standard for everyone (or rather those who aren’t exempt) and whilst it wont suit everyone, that is kind of the point of having a standard in the first place.
English Tests & Exemptions
So how does it currently work? Well we have English testing applied in a few places, namely our Skilled Migrant Category and also for Parent Resident Visa applicants, those applying for an AEWV and a handful of other more specific categories. Given the English requirements for AEWV and Parents are relatively low anyway, the focus of this article is on the standards that are applied to Skilled Migrants - which is where the bulk of the public debate focuses on.
English Language Options
We have various options for proving English depending on where you come from and where you were educated.
One argument that does pop up from time to time however is that if we don’t apply English testing to investors, why do we do it for Skilled Migrants - easy answer, they are completely different types of applicants and their need for English (based on their reason for being here) and indeed general ability to speak English will be very different. So having different standards for different visas and for different purposes is entirely normal.
For our Skilled Migrant Category applicants, which is the focus of this article, we have several ways they can meet the standard, which include the following:
Passing one of five different English language tests, including the more common IELTS and Pearson (PTE) tests. These tests vary based on technical ability, testing process and then what they are testing you for, although they all generally aim to confirm a good degree of functional English.
Showing completion of a degree level qualification studied in one of five countries (the level and length of duration are taken in to account).
Being a citizen of one of four countries mentioned above and having proof of five years or more of work or education in that country or in New Zealand or Australia.
In terms of the countries we favour and therefore provide an exemption for, these include the UK, the US, Canada, the Republic or Ireland and Australia. However that is a pretty limited list, and one area where I think we could expand the eligibility.
Where I agree with industry commentators on this subject is the fact that there are plenty of other countries around the world, where English might not be the only language, but it is predominantly used. Singapore for example, uses English exclusively in the workplace and as a consequence it has become mainstream in education and in many households. South Africa has English as the dominant language in work and education and it might surprise you to know that English is also the official language for work, education and government in Nigeria.
I am not suggesting we suddenly add all of these countries in, but it would be easy to include countries with perhaps additional caveats that proof is required, much like we have done for the tight five above. There would be no real risk in doing this, given applicants need to be able to secure employment here and employers generally tend to apply their own test of English as part of the recruitment process.
We could also entertain exemptions for people earning over a certain salary level in their New Zealand based employment, given the higher the salary, generally the higher the level of skill and that is going to inevitably involve having a good command of English. More weight could also be given to work experience completed in New Zealand (although this is a more complex one), and also the registration you might have secured here.
There is definitely room to expand the exemptions available, given the world is quite different to when the original exemptions were created, however for those who don’t fall within any of these current or potential exemptions, testing should be maintained as the key measure. Lowering that testing is, in my view, a foolish idea and I will explain why.
Why We Test English
One of the key reasons, people tend to argue the case for lowering the English testing level is centred around employment - for example, if you are a welder, who spends all day behind a mask, joining bits of steel together, why would you need to be able to compose a well crafted essay in English. That makes sense, if your only interaction with New Zealand was welding bits of steel together - but it never is. Employment is only one reason why English is tested and to assume that you can raise or lower the standard based only on this reason is fairly naïve.
English Testing
English ability is not just about your ability to work, but is a key component of being able to live in New Zealand.
New Zealand has three official languages, Te Reo Maori, English and sign-language. However English is the dominant language in most workplaces and education institutes.
English isn’t just used in those two places though and when you go to a doctor, you will most likely need to be able to communicate in English, similarly if you need to use any social services, English will be the medium of communication, interacting with our legal system, speaking to your children’s teachers, or even just buying medication from a pharmacy. Whilst there are speakers of other languages in all these places, English remains the most commonly used language and therefore we need to ensure that our migrants can use it.
What tends to be missing from the debate around English is the fact that it has much broader implications than simply how you perform from nine to five in your workplace. A lack of English is not only challenging for the applicant, but equally all of the people that applicant may need to interact with as they settle in to New Zealand.
I was recently asked to engage with a client in a legal process, offering an immigration opinion on an unfortunate situation they had found themselves in. Given their English was very minimal, it created additional work for all parties concerned, and I am still not entirely convinced the applicant understood everything that they needed to understand. That has pretty significant consequences for them and for us.
English, being able to use it, and that being a prerequisite for living here permanently are in my view core components of our visa system and need to be maintained, not chipped away at.
The Calls To Lower The Standard
Most of the calls to lower English testing levels, come off the back of eligibility and people not being able to apply for residence, because they don’t fall within the exemptions, and can’t pass one of those five tests, so logically when groups of these individuals get together, you start to see the petitions flying. There are some on social media, who make a living out of drumming up this excitement.
This then inevitably comes back to the question as to whether the current levels required in an English test are too high, to meet that overall need, and often this becomes a segregated argument. Many people suggest if you are in a trade your test level should be lower, than if you are in a non-trade related role - although if we were to accept tradespeople at say IELTS 5.0, then why would we need an accountant with a job in New Zealand to pass at 6.5? The same people arguing our system needs to be equitable, are also arguing that people should be tested at different levels depending on whether they wield a spanner or a ballpoint pen.
Slippery Slope
Lowering the English standard potentially presents more challenges that it provides solutions.
6.5 in IELTS or the other test equivalents is not actually that high and given most tradespeople need to work here for two years or more before they need to prove English, that period of time is more than sufficient to increase their English ability to the test levels we currently have.
Lowering it to 6.0 is a negligible and arguably pointless change, and adding in different levels for different people, waters down the much broader intent of English requirements as well.
There is also the argument that we tend to use English to discriminate and well actually we do - we want people who can function, settle and integrate, as opposed to those who isolate themselves within their own migrant communities, struggle to function in society and create additional burdens and costs on those social services, because they take far longer to assist, given their difficulties to communicate.
We want our system to attract, invite and retain those people who can bring the skills we need, but also function well within the broader fabric of our society. Commentators also often make the comparison to other countries, and why do we have a slightly higher level - because we can. We do not have to do what other countries do, instead we have to do what works for us.
The debate over English will continue to come and go, and ultimately the decision on the levels we use or exemptions we apply will come down to the Government of the day, however for what it is worth, whilst there is some room to adapt our settings to be more current, including more exemptions and recognition of other factors, for those that we need to test, fiddling with those numbers has the potential to create more problems than solutions.
Why This Is So Important
I suspect that this article and certainly my opinions might draw a bit of friendly fire from some colleagues in the industry and of course that is the way this works, as we all tend to have quite different opinions about most things. However for some applicants, English language and their ability to meet the requirements can be quite an anxious part of the process - but it sort of has to be.
I counsel a lot of prospective migrants in terms of their eligibility and plans and where I get the feeling that they may not meet the English criteria, my advice is two-fold - you can if you put in the work and you need to, in order to make your move successfully. English ability isn’t just about a set of criteria, used for a visa, its about being able to integrate, feel confident in your new surroundings and being able to enjoy that process as much as possible.
Language is powerful and and equally it has a very powerful ability to isolate people, when they are unable to speak the language that surrounds them every day. I have seen too many migrants, enticed here for all the great things New Zealand has to offer, only to spend their lives surrounded by people that speak their home language, struggling to integrate and settle in to that new life they were seeking.
Whilst I am sure plenty will disagree with me on this topic, I think our English criteria should be reviewed and modernised, but it also needs to remain robust enough to ensure that we bring in people who can not only wield a ballpoint pen or hammer, but also function settle and integrate.
Until next week…
