Migration (English Language Requirements for Subclass 192 (Pacific Engagement) Visa—Pacific Engagement Stream) Instrument 2025

The instrument is tightly focused. Its main concepts are: prescribed tests, component-specific minimum scores, recency windows for test validity tied to evidence timing, the actor who must take the test, and transitional rules linking the instrument’s application to the timing of a pre-application process.

Prescribed tests. Clause 6(2) defines which tests are accepted: the CAE, IELTS, OET, PTE, and the TOEFL iBT with the condition that the TOEFL iBT is only acceptable if the test was undertaken on or before 25 July 2023. This is a conditional acceptance mechanism that makes test type eligibility depend on test date for TOEFL.

Component-level minima. Clause 6(3) provides a table that specifies minima for the listening and speaking components only. It lists for each test the numeric or band thresholds that must be met for both listening and speaking: CAE 154 for each of listening and speaking; IELTS 5.0 for each of listening and speaking; OET B for each of listening and speaking; PTE 36 for each of listening and speaking; TOEFL iBT listening at least 4 and speaking at least 14. The instrument deliberately addresses only listening and speaking minima as the operative constraints.

Absence of reading, writing and overall minima. The instrument contains a Note that states minimum test scores are not required except as set out in the table, and explicitly notes there is no minimum test score for reading and writing components and no minimum overall score is required. This concentrates the compliance requirement onto oral and aural English capability as evidenced by component scores.

Recency and evidence timing. Clause 6(1)(c) establishes two alternative recency tests for the same three-year period, conditioned on whether evidence is provided at the time of application. If evidence is provided at application, the test must have been undertaken within the three years immediately before the day of application. If evidence is not provided at application, the test must have been undertaken within the three years immediately before the day on which a decision to grant or refuse the visa is made. This ties compliance to both applicant behaviour in providing evidence and the administrative timeline for decision-making.

Who must take the test. Clause 6(1)(a) requires that the applicant, or if there is a combined application the applicant’s spouse or de facto partner, must undertake an accepted English language test. The instrument therefore imposes the obligation on the person or the spouse/de facto partner where a combined application has been lodged.

Transitional and application nexus. Clause 7 connects the instrument’s application to the concept of a selected participant for a visa pre-application process. Clause 7(1) applies the instrument to applications made on or after 1 May 2025 where the related pre-application process was conducted on or after that date. Clause 7(2) preserves LIN 24/023 for pre-application processes conducted before 1 May 2025. Schedule 1 effects the repeal of LIN 24/023. The instrument therefore creates a temporal cut-off that determines which set of English-language rules applies to a given application.

Legislative authority. Clause 3 records the legal authority: the instrument is made under clause 192.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. Clause 4 defines Migration Regulations and Pacific Engagement stream visa for internal cross-reference, anchoring the instrument within the broader regulatory taxonomy.

These concepts produce a compliance design that focuses applicants’ actions on achieving specified listening and speaking component thresholds on a prescribed set of tests within a three-year window, and on timing submission of evidence to align the recency window with the application date rather than the decision date.

The instrument affects a narrow population of visa applicants and tangential actors. Primary affected persons are applicants for a Subclass 192 (Pacific Engagement) visa in the Pacific Engagement stream, as defined in clause 4 which refers to Subdivision 192.22 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. Clause 6(1) makes the requirement applicable to the applicant, and where a spouse or de facto partner has made a combined application, to that spouse or de facto partner. Thus the obligation is person-specific but extends to a spouse or de facto partner when their status is joined in a combined application.

Selected participants for a visa pre-application process are a gating category under clause 7. Clause 7(1) states the instrument applies to an application made on or after 1 May 2025 if the application relates to a selected participant for a visa pre-application process conducted on or after 1 May 2025. Clause 7(2) preserves LIN 24/023 for selected participants whose pre-application process was conducted before 1 May 2025. Therefore the instrument affects applicants depending on when their pre-application process was conducted, not merely on the application lodged date. This introduces a three-way temporal link: pre-application process date, application date, and the instrument’s commencement date. Practically, applicants who were selected participants in pre-application processes run before 1 May 2025 will remain subject to the prior instrument, while those selected on or after 1 May 2025 will be subject to this new instrument provided their application is made on or after 1 May 2025.

Testing providers and commercial test-takers are indirect stakeholders. Clause 6(2) prescribes which tests are acceptable, thereby directing demand to specific providers: Cambridge (CAE), IELTS, OET, Pearson (PTE), and the TOEFL iBT under a dated qualification. Testing providers thus face changes in market demand depending on which tests applicants choose to take and when. The dated restriction on TOEFL iBT in clause 6(2)(e) means applicants who undertook TOEFL iBT on or before 25 July 2023 may rely on those results, while anyone who took TOEFL after that date is not covered by this instrument’s acceptance of TOEFL results. This will force some applicants to take alternative tests if their only prior test is a TOEFL taken after that date.

Visa decision-makers and departmental case officers will be tasked with verifying component-level scores and dates in accordance with clause 6(1)(c) and clause 6(3). They must apply the two alternative recency tests depending on whether test evidence is provided at application. This creates administrative work for verification of component scores, test dates, and chains of custody for test results.

Finally, the instrument affects legal and migration advisers who need to determine which instrument applies under clause 7 when advising clients, since the application of this instrument depends not only on the lodgement date but on the date of the visa pre-application process that selected the participant. The repeal in Schedule 1 means advisers must check whether LIN 24/023 or this instrument governs a particular client’s case, and the relevant transitional provision is clause 7(2).

Duties

• Undertake an accepted English language test: Clause 6(1)(a) places a duty on the applicant, or on the applicant’s spouse or de facto partner if a combined application has been made, to undertake an English language test specified in clause 6(2). The duty is individualised to the applicant or the spouse/de facto partner in combined applications.

• Achieve component minima in listening and speaking: Clause 6(1)(b) and clause 6(3) impose a duty to achieve the test scores specified in Column 2 of the table for the listening and speaking components. The table in clause 6(3) lists concrete minima per test, for example IELTS listening and speaking each at least 5.0, PTE listening and speaking at least 36, OET listening and speaking at least B, CAE listening and speaking at least 154, and TOEFL listening at least 4 and speaking at least 14 (subject to the TOEFL date limitation in clause 6(2)(e)).

• Ensure test recency according to evidence timing: Clause 6(1)(c) requires the test to have been undertaken within the three-year period immediately before either the day of application if evidence is provided at application, or the day on which a decision is made if evidence is not provided at application. This creates a procedural duty to time testing and submission of evidence strategically.

• Where combined applications exist, ensure spouse or de facto partner compliance: Clause 6(1)(a) explicitly catches a spouse or de facto partner when a combined application is made, so someone may have to take a test even if they are not the primary applicant.

Rights

• No minima for reading, writing, or overall scores: The instrument’s Note attached to clause 6(3) states explicitly that minimum test scores are not required unless set out in the table, and that there is no minimum for reading and writing components and no minimum overall score. This is a substantive limitation on the duty to achieve a particular test result: only listening and speaking components are required at specified minima. The Note functions as a right to not be assessed against reading, writing or overall score minima in this instrument.

• Use of earlier valid TOEFL iBT results where applicable: Clause 6(2)(e) allows acceptance of TOEFL iBT results only if the test was undertaken on or before 25 July 2023. Persons who have TOEFL iBT results from on or before that date have the right to rely on them for the specified listening and speaking minima set out in clause 6(3) item 5.

• Time-window flexibility linked to evidence submission: Clause 6(1)(c) affords applicants a procedural option. If evidence is provided at the time of application, the recency clock runs to the application date. If evidence is not provided at application, an applicant still has the opportunity to provide evidence later provided the test was taken within three years immediately before the decision date. That is a limited right to supply evidence later and not be disadvantaged so long as the test was taken within the decision‑date-related three-year window.

Administrative duties and implied responsibilities

• Verification and record-keeping: Implicit in the instrument is the duty on visa decision makers to verify test types, component scores and test dates in accordance with clause 6, and to determine whether the instrument applies under clause 7, including whether LIN 24/023 continues to apply under clause 7(2). While the instrument does not spell out verification processes, those tasks follow from applying the specified requirements.

Limitations and scope of rights and duties

• The instrument prescribes only English language testing requirements; it does not create or alter other visa eligibility criteria contained in Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. Clause 3 establishes the instrument’s authority under clause 192.223, which anchors these duties within the broader migration regulatory framework. The instrument does not itself create offences, criminal penalties or administrative fines; it prescribes requirements to be applied under existing migration decision-making powers.

The instrument itself contains no express penalty, offence provision or administrative sanction clauses. It is an instrument made under clause 192.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, as recorded in clause 3, and functions by prescribing conditions to be met for the purposes of that clause. The instrument therefore sets out requirements that will be applied by decision-makers when assessing visa applications under the Migration Regulations, rather than creating new criminal or civil sanctions within the instrument.

Enforcement mechanism within the migration framework. Because the instrument prescribes matters that form part of visa eligibility requirements, non-compliance will manifest as an inability to satisfy the English language requirement contained in clause 192.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. The instrument does not specify the outcome that follows failure to meet these requirements, but under ordinary operation of visa decision-making powers in the Migration Regulations a failure to satisfy a prescribed requirement is likely to bear on whether the visa is granted. The instrument is therefore enforceable through administrative visa decision processes that operate under the Migration Regulations. The instrument’s clause 6(1)(c) links compliance to a three-year recency test and the timing of evidence submission, which in practice will require case officers to check test dates and evidence submission dates when making decisions.

Verification tasks. Administrative enforcement will require visa processing staff to verify the test type against clause 6(2), the component scores against clause 6(3), and the test date against clause 6(1)(c). The Department will need to determine whether evidence was provided at the time of application and hence which three-year window applies. The instrument does not specify the form of evidence required for verification or set evidentiary thresholds for authenticity, so existing departmental verification practices and the Migration Regulations’ evidentiary rules will govern how evidence is assessed. The instrument’s silence on documentary form and verification procedures may create operational discretion for decision-makers to apply standard departmental verification methods.

Administrative risk and timing. Clause 6(1)(c) creates a potential enforcement risk for applicants who do not provide evidence with the application because the relevant recency period is measured against the decision date, which can be many months after application. If a delay in decision-making results in a test falling outside the three-year window measured from decision date, the applicant may be non-compliant at the point of decision even if compliant at lodgement, unless they retake the test. That consequence is an operational enforcement outcome under the Migration Regulations rather than a separate statutory penalty in this instrument.

No criminal penalties, fines or prescribed sanctions. The instrument does not establish monetary penalties, criminal sanctions or other punishments. Its enforcement is via the migration decision-making process, applying the prescribed requirements as criteria under clause 192.223 of Schedule 2. Any formal adverse outcomes resulting from not meeting the instrument’s requirements will therefore be the visa decision outcomes provided for in the Migration Regulations framework rather than penalties contained in this instrument.

This instrument is an exercise of regulatory specification under the Migration Regulations 1994. Clause 3 states explicitly that the instrument is made under clause 192.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. Clause 4 defines "Migration Regulations" to mean the Migration Regulations 1994, and defines "Pacific Engagement stream visa" by reference to Subdivision 192.22 of Schedule 2 to those Regulations. Therefore the instrument operates as a subordinate instrument that specifies requirements for an existing visa criterion contained in the Migration Regulations. The instrument does not amend the Migration Regulations; rather it prescribes English language tests, component thresholds and recency rules to be applied under clause 192.223.

Interaction with the prior instrument. Schedule 1 repeals the prior instrument LIN 24/023 in full. Clause 7(2) preserves LIN 24/023 for certain applicants: despite that repeal, LIN 24/023 continues to apply to an application for a Subclass 192 (Pacific Engagement) visa if the application relates to a selected participant for a visa pre-application process conducted before 1 May 2025. This creates an overlap in effect where two different instruments may govern different applications depending on the timing of the pre-application process. Practitioners must therefore check which instrument applies in each case in accordance with clause 7, and cannot assume the new instrument automatically displaces the prior instrument for all pending or even lodged applications.

Temporal qualification for TOEFL iBT. Clause 6(2)(e) accepts the TOEFL iBT only if the test was undertaken on or before 25 July 2023. That date-specific acceptance condition links the instrument to historic test availability or equivalence decisions, and produces an interaction with private testing records. Applicants who took TOEFL iBT tests after 25 July 2023 are not covered by this instrument’s acceptance of TOEFL results and will need to rely on another accepted test type. This clause therefore interacts with records and contracts between applicants and testing providers and may influence private behaviour by requiring a different test choice in some cases.

Relationship with general visa decision-making rules. The instrument is silent on evidentiary standards and verification processes, so interactions with other legal provisions governing evidence in migration decisions will occur in practice. Decision-makers will rely on existing Migration Regulations provisions that set out decision-making powers, evidence admissibility, and procedural fairness obligations. The instrument’s requirement that tests be undertaken within particular timeframes will be applied within that broader decision-making context.

No conflict with criminal or civil statutes. Because the instrument deals with administrative eligibility requirements for a visa, it does not purport to create criminal offences or civil liabilities beyond impacts on visa eligibility. Any enforcement or administrative actions taken as a consequence of non-compliance must be based in the Migration Regulations and associated administrative law principles. The instrument does not displace rights under administrative law, procedural fairness or natural justice protections that apply in migration decisions.

Operational interaction with departmental policy. The instrument leaves verification procedures and administrative detail to department practice. That means departmental policy documents, procedural instructions and caseworker manuals will mediate how the instrument is implemented. Those internal policy instruments will need to be consistent with this instrument’s text, especially its component minima and recency provisions, but they may flesh out evidentiary forms, acceptable test result documentation and verification steps.

This instrument sets out its own formal metadata and a limited amendment record within its text. Clause 1 gives the instrument its formal name, "Migration (English Language Requirements for Subclass 192 (Pacific Engagement) Visa,Pacific Engagement Stream) Instrument 2025". Clause 2 records that it commences on 1 May 2025. Clause 3 states the legal authority for the instrument is clause 192.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. Clause 4 provides internal definitions of "Migration Regulations" and "Pacific Engagement stream visa" for use within the instrument.

Schedule 1 records a repeal. It expressly repeals in full the Migration (English Language Requirements for Subclass 192 (Pacific Engagement) Visa) Instrument (LIN 24/023) 2024, with item 1 stating "The whole of the instrument" and the instruction to repeal the instrument. Clause 7 contains transitional provisions that preserve LIN 24/023 for applications relating to selected participants whose visa pre-application process was conducted before 1 May 2025, despite the Schedule 1 repeal. Therefore the amendment history recorded within the instrument is a single-step replacement with a transitional saving.

There are no other amendment entries in the instrument text. No earlier or later amendments are recorded in this source. The instrument does not itself amend the Migration Regulations 1994; it is subordinate legislation under clause 192.223 and functions by specifying requirements for applying that clause. The text does not reference any prior modifications to clause 192.223 or to Subdivision 192.22 of Schedule 2, nor does it record subsequent changes.

Date of making. The instrument identifies its maker and date at the front matter: it is made by Tony Burke, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, and is dated 25 February 2025. Clause 2 indicates it commences on 1 May 2025, so the instrument’s date of making precedes its commencement. That matters for transitional application under clause 7.

No further internal amendment logs or amendment schedules are present. The instrument’s Schedule 1 is limited to the single repeal of LIN 24/023. Any future changes to these English-language test requirements or to the Migration Regulations would require separate instruments or amendments which are not recorded in this source.

The instrument contains no litigation history. It names no cases, and does not summarise any judicial or tribunal decisions. There is no statement within the text that any provision has been considered in court or is the subject of ongoing litigation. The instrument is a stand-alone specification of English language testing requirements, and contains no references to administrative appeals, Tribunal decisions, or court proceedings as part of its operative content.

Because the instrument is subordinate legislation made under clause 192.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations, any legal challenges to its application would ordinarily proceed through administrative law avenues available under the Migration Act and general administrative law principles. However, the instrument itself does not record any judicial consideration nor precedential authority. Practitioners must therefore treat the instrument as fresh regulatory specification and, where relevant, seek authoritative guidance from departmental policy, migration tribunals and courts subsequent to this instrument’s commencement. The absence of litigation history in the text means there is no source-grounded record of how courts or tribunals have interpreted the particular component-level minima, the recency provisions, or the transitional application nexus.

Given the instrument’s specificity on test types, component minima and timing, future litigation, if any, could focus on interpretive questions such as the meaning of "undertaken" for test date purposes, the evidentiary threshold for demonstrating test outcomes, the scope of "combined application" for catching spouses or de facto partners, and the temporal application in clause 7. None of these contentious issues are resolved in the instrument text itself. Any case law developing on these items will be external to this instrument and is not recorded here.

This instrument contains several technical and timing traps that produce practical risk for applicants and advisers.

1. Test component focus. The instrument requires minima only for listening and speaking components, per clause 6(3) and the Note. There are no minima for reading, writing or overall score. That means an applicant could have strong reading and writing results but still fail if listening and speaking do not meet the specified thresholds. Practitioners must therefore advise clients to focus on achieving the required component scores, rather than overall band scores.

2. TOEFL iBT acceptance is date-limited. Clause 6(2)(e) accepts the TOEFL iBT only if the test was undertaken on or before 25 July 2023. Applicants who have only a TOEFL iBT taken after that date must take one of the other accepted tests to meet the instrument’s requirements. This is a common source of error because a test that was acceptable previously may no longer be accepted unless taken before the qualifying date.

3. Recency linked to evidence timing. Clause 6(1)(c) contains two alternative three-year recency rules. If the applicant provides test evidence with the application, the three-year window is measured to the application date. If evidence is not provided at application, the three-year window is measured to the decision date. That produces two risks. First, applicants who submit evidence at lodgement secure the recency window measured to application day, reducing risk of a decision delay invalidating test recency. Second, applicants who delay providing evidence may find that departmental decision delays push the decision date beyond three years from the test date, creating non-compliance even though at lodgement their test was within three years. Advisers must therefore counsel clients to provide evidence at lodgement unless there is a specific reason not to.

4. Combined applications broaden exposure. Clause 6(1)(a) catches the applicant’s spouse or de facto partner in combined applications. If an applicant enters a combined application without checking their partner’s test record, the partner may later need to take a test to meet the requirement. Combined-application status therefore matters materially for test obligations.

5. Transitional complexity. Clause 7 ties the instrument’s application to whether the applicant is a selected participant in a visa pre-application process and to the date of that process. The instrument applies to applications made on or after 1 May 2025 only if the related pre-application process was conducted on or after 1 May 2025. LIN 24/023 continues to apply where the pre-application process was conducted before 1 May 2025, per clause 7(2). That two-stage temporal test (pre-application process date, plus application date) is a procedural complexity. Advisers must document the pre-application process date to determine which instrument governs an application. Misclassification could lead to advising a client to meet the wrong set of requirements.

6. Evidence form and verification are unspecified. The instrument does not specify required documentary formats or authentication methods for test evidence. That means decision-makers will rely on department practice. Applicants who submit non-standard or uncertified copies risk longer processing time or requests for further evidence.

7. No overall score buffer. Because overall scores and reading and writing are not required, an applicant cannot rely on a strong overall score to offset weak listening or speaking components. Practitioners should avoid assuming equivalence between component and overall thresholds when advising on test selection strategies.

8. No express remedial or appeal routes included. The instrument does not establish internal review or appeal mechanisms specific to these requirements. Any challenges will rely on ordinary migration review and administrative law pathways set out in the Migration Act and regulations.

9. Market implications for testing choice. The prescribed tests direct demand. Applicants who previously planned to rely on TOEFL iBT results taken after 25 July 2023 must choose another provider, potentially incurring additional testing fees and delays.

10. Potential timing mismatch with decision delays. Because recency can be measured to the decision date if evidence is not supplied at lodgement, prolonged administrative delays can trigger the need for retesting. Applicants should consider booking tests with adequate buffer time, or supply evidence at lodgement to lock in the application-date recency window.

Each of these points derives from the instrument’s text and operationalises the specific clauses: clause 6(2) and clause 6(3) for test types and scores, clause 6(1)(c) for timing, clause 6(1)(a) for who must test, and clause 7 for transitional application. Practitioners should map client test histories and pre-application process dates to these clauses before advising on test-taking strategies.

Follow these concrete steps, each mapped to the relevant clause of the instrument.

1. Determine which instrument applies. Check whether the applicant was a selected participant in a visa pre-application process, and record the date of that process. Clause 7(1) makes this instrument applicable to applications made on or after 1 May 2025 only if the pre-application process was conducted on or after 1 May 2025. Clause 7(2) keeps LIN 24/023 in force for selected participants whose pre-application process was conducted before 1 May 2025. Verify the pre-application process date to decide which requirements govern.

2. Identify who must test. Clause 6(1)(a) requires the applicant, or if a combined application has been made, the applicant’s spouse or de facto partner, to undertake an accepted test. Confirm whether the file is a combined application and ensure the relevant person(s) are allocated testing responsibility.

3. Choose an accepted test. Clause 6(2) lists accepted tests: CAE, IELTS, OET, PTE, and TOEFL iBT subject to the date condition in clause 6(2)(e). If the applicant’s only prior TOEFL iBT test was taken after 25 July 2023, do not rely on that TOEFL result; instead arrange CAE, IELTS, OET or PTE.

4. Aim for component minima. Clause 6(3) specifies minimum scores for listening and speaking. Ensure test preparation is targeted at meeting those minima. For convenience, the table requires:

   • CAE: listening and speaking each at least 154;
   • IELTS: listening and speaking each at least 5.0;
   • OET: listening and speaking each at least B;
   • PTE: listening and speaking each at least 36;
   • TOEFL iBT: listening at least 4 and speaking at least 14, but only if the TOEFL was taken on or before 25 July 2023.

5. Schedule tests with the recency window in mind. Clause 6(1)(c) sets a three-year validity window measured differently depending on when evidence is provided. If you plan to supply test evidence at lodgement, the three-year window runs from the day of application. If you intend to supply evidence later, the three-year window runs from the decision date. To minimise risk from administrative delays, it is generally safer to provide evidence at application so the recency window is fixed at lodgement.

6. Obtain acceptable evidence and keep originals. The instrument does not specify required forms of evidence. Use recognised test reports and maintain originals or certified copies. Keep documentation of test dates, component scores, and the official results slip or electronic verification code. Be prepared to satisfy departmental verification practices for authenticity.

7. Coordinate timing for combined applicants. If a spouse or de facto partner needs to test, synchronise test dates and evidence submission so both parties meet the recency windows applicable under clause 6(1)(c).

8. Address TOEFL-specific cases. If relying on TOEFL iBT results, confirm that the test date is on or before 25 July 2023 as required by clause 6(2)(e). If the test date is later, arrange an alternative accepted test.

9. Allow buffer for decision delays. If evidence is not submitted at lodgement for some reason, assume the test’s three-year period will be measured against the decision date and plan retesting or later results accordingly. Keep track of departmental processing times and be prepared to retake tests if a decision is delayed beyond the three-year window.

10. Document the pre-application process date. Retain records proving the date the applicant was selected in a pre-application process, as that date determines which instrument applies under clause 7.

11. Liaise with advisors for broader visa criteria. The instrument addresses English language requirements only. Ensure compliance with all other eligibility criteria under Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. Provide clients with a checklist mapping English test compliance to other visa criteria.

12. Prepare for verification queries. Because the instrument does not prescribe verification forms, expect departmental requests for further information. Respond promptly with authenticated test results and evidence of test dates.

Each step above is grounded in the instrument’s clauses: clause 7 for transitional application, clause 6(1)(a) for who must test, clause 6(2) for accepted tests, clause 6(3) for minima, and clause 6(1)(c) for recency rules. Compliance requires aligning test choice, component focus, timing and evidence strategy to those specific textual requirements.