Michaela Cash has put English proficiency at the centre of the Coalition’s immigration message, arguing people who make Australia their permanent home should be expected to learn the country’s national language.
The senior Liberal has backed an obligation for permanent visa holders to learn English, framing the proposal as both a practical requirement for migrants and an important part of integration into Australian society.
“If you want to call Australia home, you should speak its national language,” Cash said.
“We will make learning English an obligation for permanent visa holders — not an option.”
Cash says migrants need English to live and work in Australia
Cash’s argument centres on the everyday practical value of English rather than simply treating language as a cultural symbol.
“As we all know, English is our national language,” she said.
“If you come to our great country, yes, you should learn English. You should be able to read English.”
Cash said language skills were fundamental to functioning independently in Australian society.
“Why? Because you need it to live. You need it to actually work on a daily basis.”
English is officially described as Australia’s national language
That part of Cash’s argument is consistent with the Commonwealth’s own citizenship material.
The Department of Home Affairs explicitly describes English as Australia’s national language.
Its current citizenship guidance says communicating in English helps people participate fully in Australian life.
English also plays a formal role throughout Australia’s citizenship and migration systems.
But Australia does not have one English rule for every migrant
The existing system is more complicated than a single language test applying to everybody who moves permanently to Australia.
Home Affairs currently requires evidence of English proficiency for some visa applications.
The precise standard depends on the visa subclass and the applicant’s circumstances.
Australia uses several formal proficiency categories, including functional, vocational, competent, proficient and superior English.
Different migration pathways can therefore impose substantially different language requirements.
Some skilled migrants already have to demonstrate English
English proficiency is already deeply embedded in Australia’s skilled migration program.
For example, applicants for various skilled visas may need to demonstrate a prescribed English level or can receive migration points for stronger language performance.
The Skills in Demand subclass 482 visa also requires primary applicants to meet minimum English standards unless an exemption applies.
Approved tests and minimum scores are determined by Home Affairs.
So requiring English from migrants is not a new concept in Australian immigration policy.
What would be new is a broader obligation after permanent migration
Cash’s language goes further than merely defending the existing visa tests.
Her stated position focuses specifically on making learning English an obligation for permanent visa holders.
That distinction matters.
Australia has numerous permanent migration pathways, including skilled and family visas, and eligibility requirements vary between them.
There is not currently one universal English proficiency rule that simply applies identically to every person because they hold Australian permanent residency.
Permanent residency is not citizenship
The distinction is particularly important because permanent residents and Australian citizens have different legal statuses.
A permanent visa allows a person to remain in Australia indefinitely.
Permanent residents can generally work and study in Australia and access a range of services, subject to applicable rules.
But they are not automatically Australian citizens.
Citizenship requires a separate application and additional eligibility requirements.
Citizenship already has an English requirement
For most people applying for Australian citizenship by conferral, English is already unavoidable.
Most applicants aged between 18 and 59 are required to sit the Australian citizenship test.
The test assesses knowledge of Australia, the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship and Australian values.
It also demonstrates that applicants possess a basic knowledge of English.
The citizenship test itself is conducted in English.
Applicants must understand Australian values as well
Language is only one component of the citizenship process.
Applicants sitting the test must demonstrate an understanding and commitment to Australian values based on freedom, respect and equality.
They must score at least 75 per cent overall and correctly answer all five Australian values questions.
Home Affairs says satisfying the citizenship test also meets the applicable basic English-language requirement.
The existing model therefore links language, civic knowledge and citizenship rather than treating them as entirely separate concepts.
Cash wants the expectation to begin earlier
The political significance of Cash’s proposal is that it would push that integration expectation more strongly into the permanent migration stage.
Under her argument, migrants should not wait until they seek citizenship before English becomes an important responsibility.
“People who come to Australia should speak English and learn English,” she said.
“The answer is absolutely yes.”
The Coalition links language with integration
Cash has presented the position as part of a broader Coalition agenda around migration, economic participation and Australian social cohesion.
She argues English allows migrants to communicate at work, interact with government and services and participate more independently in their communities.
The policy also fits a long-running Coalition argument that migration should be accompanied by strong expectations of integration.
Cash says the objective is both economic and cultural.
“The Coalition has made it very, very clear that this is part of our plan to fix the economy and protect our way of life,” she said.
The practical argument for English is substantial
Whatever the politics surrounding migration, English proficiency has obvious practical advantages for people living permanently in Australia.
It can expand employment opportunities.
It makes dealing with schools, banks, government agencies, landlords and medical services easier.
It can reduce dependence on relatives or interpreters for everyday transactions.
It can also make it easier for migrants to build relationships beyond communities that speak their first language.
English can matter particularly in the workplace
Language skills can also have consequences for workplace safety and productivity.
Employees need to understand instructions, contracts, safety procedures and employment rights.
Workers with weak English can be more vulnerable to misunderstanding conditions or becoming dependent on intermediaries.
Employers in many occupations likewise require staff to communicate clearly with customers and colleagues.
That gives the language debate an economic dimension extending beyond questions of national identity.
But an ‘obligation’ raises major unanswered questions
Turning a social expectation into a formal migration obligation is considerably more complicated.
What level of English would permanent residents be expected to achieve?
Would they need to pass a test?
How long would they have to reach the required standard?
Would older migrants, refugees or people with disabilities receive exemptions?
And what would happen if somebody made a genuine effort to learn English but still failed to reach the prescribed level?
Australia already recognises different levels of English
The existing migration framework offers several possible benchmarks.
At the lower end is “functional English”.
Home Affairs permits applicants to establish functional English through specified educational backgrounds, nationality in certain circumstances or approved language tests.
For IELTS tests falling within the applicable rules, for example, the functional-English benchmark can be demonstrated through a specified average score.
Higher migration categories such as competent, proficient and superior English require progressively stronger performance.
The government changed approved English tests in 2025
Australia’s language-testing framework has also recently been updated.
Home Affairs changed the approved English tests and scores used for Australian visa purposes from August 7, 2025.
Depending on the visa subclass, some earlier results can remain valid during transitional periods.
Tests must satisfy Home Affairs requirements, and fully online at-home versions of several examinations are not accepted for visa purposes.
Any new Coalition policy would therefore need to specify whether it uses this existing testing infrastructure or creates a different measure of integration.
Family migration would present one of the hardest policy questions
A universal English obligation would have different implications depending on the migrant.
A 28-year-old engineer entering through a skilled program is not in the same circumstances as an elderly parent joining adult children.
A refugee arriving after displacement presents different challenges again.
A spouse entering through a family pathway may have limited English initially but become highly proficient after several years in Australia.
A credible policy would need to account for those differences while maintaining whatever standard the Coalition ultimately wants to establish.
Refugees would require particular consideration
Humanitarian entrants can arrive in Australia after years of war, persecution or interrupted education.
Some have had limited opportunities for formal schooling even in their first language.
Others arrive with professional qualifications and strong English.
Applying exactly the same timetable and test to every entrant could therefore produce dramatically different consequences.
The question is not merely whether English is valuable, but how a government fairly turns that principle into an enforceable rule.
Australia already funds English tuition for eligible migrants
Language integration is not solely about testing people.
Australia has long operated English-language programs intended to help eligible migrants develop the skills needed to participate in Australian society.
That reflects an important policy principle: if government expects migrants to learn English, providing accessible opportunities to learn it can be just as important as imposing standards.
An obligation backed by adequate tuition would be substantially different from an obligation backed only by penalties.
The citizenship system offers another possible model
The citizenship process provides an existing framework combining language with civic integration.
Applicants prepare using the government’s Australian Citizenship: Our Common Bond material.
The test covers Australia’s people, democratic beliefs, laws, rights and responsibilities as well as values.
Although the test is conducted in English, preparation material is available in dozens of community languages.
That approach recognises English as the national language while still helping migrants understand the material through their existing language skills.
Multilingual Australia and a national language are not mutually exclusive
Australia is one of the world’s most linguistically diverse developed countries.
Millions of Australians use languages other than English at home.
Successive waves of migration have brought Italian, Greek, Arabic, Vietnamese, Mandarin, Cantonese, Punjabi, Hindi and many other languages into Australian communities.
That multilingual reality does not contradict the Commonwealth’s description of English as the national language.
The policy question is whether English should simply be encouraged as the common language or formally required from people settling permanently.
Cash is firmly on the obligation side
Her position leaves little ambiguity about the principle.
People choosing Australia as their permanent home, she argues, acquire responsibilities alongside the benefits of settlement.
Learning the language is one of them.
The Coalition’s case is that a common language strengthens economic participation and social cohesion while giving migrants greater independence.
For Cash, speaking English is not merely useful — it is part of the bargain involved in making Australia home.
The details will determine how significant the policy really is
The central principle is easy to communicate.
Implementation is where the real political contest will begin.
If the Coalition merely expands access to English classes and creates an expectation that permanent residents participate, the practical change could be modest.
If it requires permanent visa holders to pass a prescribed test and attaches consequences for failing, the reform would be considerably more significant.
The difference between those two models is enormous, and detailed policy design will be essential.
There is also a question of when the requirement applies
A government could theoretically require English before a permanent visa is granted.
Alternatively, it could grant permanent residency subject to an obligation to undertake language education after arrival.
A third model could preserve existing permanent visa requirements but strengthen English standards when residents later seek citizenship.
Each approach would affect different migrant groups in different ways.
Cash’s language suggests an ongoing obligation for permanent visa holders, but the precise enforcement mechanism will determine its real reach.
Australia’s existing system already establishes the principle
One thing is clear from current government policy.
English proficiency is already considered relevant to successful migration and integration.
Home Affairs requires it for various visa pathways.
The citizenship system explicitly requires basic English knowledge for most adult applicants.
And official Commonwealth guidance describes English unequivocally as Australia’s national language.
The Coalition’s emerging argument is therefore not about introducing English into migration policy for the first time, but about extending how broadly and strongly that expectation applies.
The migration debate is shifting towards integration
Much of Australia’s recent immigration argument has focused on numbers.
Political parties have fought over net overseas migration, international students, housing pressure and skilled visa levels.
Cash’s intervention introduces a different question.
It asks not simply how many people Australia should accept, but what should reasonably be expected of people once Australia accepts them permanently.
That distinction could become increasingly important as migration remains one of the country’s dominant political issues.
A common language can unite without erasing heritage
Expecting migrants to learn English does not necessarily require them to abandon the language of their birth.
Australians routinely maintain multiple identities and languages.
A migrant can speak Vietnamese with family, Mandarin with friends or Arabic within their community while using English across the wider society.
The Coalition’s strongest case therefore does not depend on rejecting multilingualism.
It depends on arguing that a diverse country still benefits from one language through which virtually everybody can communicate with one another.
The final test will be whether the Coalition turns rhetoric into workable policy
Cash has articulated a clear principle: permanent settlement should carry an expectation to learn English.
Existing Commonwealth policy supports her description of English as Australia’s national language and already embeds language standards across significant parts of the migration and citizenship systems.
But a universal obligation for permanent visa holders would raise questions that the existing framework does not answer automatically.
Standards, exemptions, education, enforcement and consequences would all need to be specified.
Until those details are released, the proposal is best understood as a significant Coalition policy direction rather than a fully defined new visa regime.
Its political message, however, could hardly be clearer: if migrants choose to make Australia their permanent home, Cash believes Australia is entitled to expect them to learn the language Australians share.
