This article seeks to engender scholarly and policy engagement with the neglected but important subject of subsidiary legislative power on different levels of English language capability for Australian visas. The question is, does the Migration Act 1958 (Commonwealth) permit regulations and legislative instruments on different levels of English language capability such as ‘competent English’? I argue that since section 5(2) of the Migration Act defines ‘functional English’ for purposes of the whole of the Act and Regulation 5.17 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Commonwealth) has been made giving effect to it, the object of the Act on the level of English language proficiency a visa applicant must have is effectively and exhaustively addressed. Therefore, the Governor-General and Minister lack subsidiary legislative power to regulate different levels of English language proficiency. I also argue that the Governor-General cannot subdelegate regulation-making power under the Migration Act. I argue as well that the competent English regulations and instruments do not contain an exhaustive definition of what it takes to prove competent English and that by virtue of sections 54(1) and 55(1) of the Migration Act, the evidence to be used to prove a visa criterion is not limited to only the prescribed evidence.

中文翻译：

---

赌一把？澳大利亚英语语言的签证和授权立法权

本文旨在促进学术和政策参与，涉及澳大利亚签证不同级别的英语语言能力的辅助立法权这一被忽视但重要的主题。问题是，1958 年移民法（英联邦）是否允许针对不同级别的英语语言能力（例如“称职的英语”）制定法规和立法文书？我认为，由于移民法第 5(2) 条为整个法案和 1994 年移民条例（英联邦）的第 5.17 条规定了“功能性英语”的定义，因此该法案的目标是签证申请人必须具备的英语语言能力水平得到了有效和详尽的解决。所以，总督和部长缺乏辅助立法权来监管不同水平的英语语言能力。我还认为，总督不能将《移民法》下的监管权力下放。我还认为，合格的英语法规和文书并未包含证明合格英语所需条件的详尽定义，并且根据移民法第 54(1) 和 55(1) 条，要使用的证据证明签证的标准不仅限于规定的证据。