Migration Help

Migration Help (http://forum.migrationhelp.com.au/index.php)
-   English test (http://forum.migrationhelp.com.au/forumdisplay.php?f=38)
-   -   Dictation Test vs IELTS (http://forum.migrationhelp.com.au/showthread.php?t=1235)

Glenn Pereira 9th April 2011 08:25 PM

Dictation Test vs IELTS
I would suggest reading the following case of 1934


R v Wilson [1934] HCA 63; (1934) 52 CLR 234 (19 December 1934)

This is an appeal from a Court of Petty Sessions exercising Federal jurisdiction. The appellant was convicted upon an information laid under sec. 7 of the Immigration Act 1901-1932 charging him that being a prohibited immigrant he was found within the Commonwealth in contravention of the Act. To establish that he was a prohibited immigrant the information relied on sec. 5, and alleged facts to bring him within sub-sec. 2 of that section, namely, that he was an immigrant, and that within 5 years after he had entered the Commonwealth he was required to pass the dictation test and failed to do so. The dictation test is defined by sec. 3 (a) which provides that the immigration of a person is prohibited who fails to pass the dictation test, that is to say, who, when an officer or person duly authorized dictates to him not less than fifty words in any prescribed language, fails to write them out in that language in the presence of the officer or authorized person. No regulation has been made prescribing a language. But by sec. 5 of the Immigration Restriction Act 1905 it is provided that until a regulation is made prescribing a language, any language authorized by sec. 3 of the Act of 1901 shall be deemed a prescribed language. That section authorizes the officer to require the immigrant to write out at dictation a passage of 50 words in length in an European language.


Robert K Chelliah 10th April 2011 12:42 PM


That was how the White (read Europeans only) Australian Policy was prescribed in laws. An officer would be dumbfounded, by error, if he dictates a French text to a Vietnamese who would have been educated at an French university.

Now IELTS is creeping in under some "employability" test.


Zoltan Bertok 10th April 2011 02:00 PM


Originally Posted by Glenn Pereira (Hozzászólás 4750)

Of course they are different, because the IELTS is much more difficult than the DT.

Glenn Pereira 10th April 2011 03:19 PM

Is the purpose of the IELTS & the DICTATION test similar ?

Keep certain people from permanent residence ????????

Glenn Pereira

Zoltan Bertok 11th April 2011 08:11 AM


Originally Posted by Glenn Pereira (Hozzászólás 4756)
Is the purpose of the IELTS & the DICTATION test similar ?
Keep certain people from permanent residence ????????
Glenn Pereira

History will tell.

Sheelagh Blanckenberg 11th April 2011 05:30 PM


Originally Posted by Glenn Pereira (Hozzászólás 4756)
Is the purpose of the IELTS & the DICTATION test similar ?

Keep certain people from permanent residence ????????

Glenn Pereira

It certainly can be construed that way unfortunately, Glenn. I just hope that is not its main intent.

And I agree with Zoltan, I think the IELTS is likely even harder than the dictation test. It would be an interesting exercise to look further into this.

On another related note, I wonder what is happening with making IELTS mandatory for existing agents? Everything seems quiet on that front or have I missed something?

Glenn Pereira 11th April 2011 09:59 PM

IELTS is also mandatory for Overseas Lawyers who apply for assessment of overseas qualifications to be eligible to practice under the following


Few countries have been exempted from the IELTS

Glenn Pereira

Robert K Chelliah 15th April 2011 10:24 PM

When does a person become competent in English
For the benefit of Forum visitors and Agents I think the issue of when the 2 years validity period of when IELTS commences may be useful. Perhaps Glenn with his legal background might add some comments:

I have a client who submitted an subclass 176 application. The case officer has used the date when the client sat for IELTS test as the date of commencement of the two years for IELTS validity. I am disputing this and saying the two years should start from the date when the IELTS certificate was issued.

Regulation 1.15 requires in its construction to read as :

Reg 1.15C Competent English

If a person applies for a General Skilled Migration visa, the person has competent English if the person satisfies the Minister that the person:
(a) has achieved, in a test conducted not more than 2 years before the day on which the application was lodged:
(i) an IELTS test score of at least 6 for each of the 4 test components of speaking, reading, writing and listening; or
(ii) a score:
(A) specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph; and
(B) in a language test specified by the Minister in the instrument; or
(b) holds a passport of a type specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this paragraph.

The person sat for the four modules on a certain date and a few days later (I think 2 or 3 weeks later) the IELTS Authority issued a certificate which publishes the result of the test and CERTIFIES with full veracity of the person's competency in the English langauge. All along my interpretation of the above legislation has been that the date of issuance of the certificate fulfils the above legislation. I have had no difficulties in the past with this understanding.

However in Para 12 of the Department Policy, and it is only policy without the force of law, that interprets the requirement of the above legislation says :

To ensure that an applicant's English language proficiency is current, it is policy that visa applicants must provide the results of a test undertaken no more than 24 months before the date they lodge their visa application.

It now begs the question Is it the certification date, when the result is published or day of siting the exam that confirms the English Competency of a person? Can it be argued that a person lawfully demonstrates her competency only from the date of the certification by the relevant mandated authority and not from the date when the person sits for the result.

By all normal convention and universal practice it is recognised and accepted that a person’s competency in any body of knowledge commences from the date when the result is formally published and certified.

It is from that date of certificate that a person is lawfully shown to be competent in that body of knowledge. This applies to all graduates of all disciplines and accreditation. Not from the date or dates of the examination.
In this instance, it is my contention the policy is out of kilter with the intention behind the legislation and any policy that imposes a requirement more than what the legislation requires becomes unlawful. Simply said, a student is deemed to have become competent in a particular course of study on the day the result is published and not on the days when the student sat for the final exam for purposes of judicial evidence. It is the date of grant of the certificate.

In instances of this kind of discrepancy between what is constructed in migration law and the improper interpretation in policy, it is the legislation and its true interpretation that counts, and not the policy.

Any comments would be appreciated.


Glenn Pereira 16th April 2011 03:59 PM

In my opinion it will be the date of the official result.

It is the same principle which is applied for the 6 months from completion of the course i.e. from the date the results are declared and not the date of the examination.

Glenn Pereira

Sheelagh Blanckenberg 17th April 2011 02:00 PM

I agree with Glenn Robert.

Certainly open for you to make a challenge as I don't think the case officer has got this right. Please let us know what eventuates.

All times are GMT +11. The time now is 04:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.