2016] The Protection of Stateless Persons in Australian Law 441 36(2)(a)) or ‘significant harm’ (required for complementary protection pursuant to s 36(2)(aa)) in the Migration Act.215 The Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s report on asylum trends from 2012–13 states that seven stateless applicants (who were classified as IMAs) were granted protection on complementary protection grounds (either by the initial departmental decision-maker or following review).216 According to the same report, no stateless applicants who arrived by plane (classified as non-IMAs) during that period were granted complementary protection.217 This indicates that, while the complementary protection regime may operate as a vital safety net for a handful of applicants who are found to meet its criteria, it is far from an adequate basis of protection for stateless persons in need of international protection. E Ministerial Intervention: Sections 351, 417 and 501J of the Migration Act If a stateless applicant does not satisfy the requirements of s 36 of the Migration Act for protection, the Minister retains a personal, non-compellable and non-reviewable discretion to grant the applicant a visa where he or she deems it to be in the public interest. Thus, pursuant to ss 351, 417 and 501J, the Minister can substitute a negative decision by the tribunal with one that favours the applicant. The term ‘public interest’ is not defined in the Migration Act.218 However, the Department’s website gives seven examples as guidance on ‘the types of unique or exceptional circumstances [the Minister] wants us to refer to him’ 215 1303526 [2013] RRTA 815 (19 November 2013) [50]–[53] (Member Kamand); 1218580 [2013] RRTA 279 (2 April 2013) [66]–[76] (Member Leehy). ‘Persecution’ and ‘significant harm’ are not interchangeable, and require different analysis: see McAdam and Chong, above n 211, 447–56. Note that while New Zealand jurisprudence states that ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ must meet the same threshold as ‘persecution’, this should not be mistaken as setting an excessively high bar. Rather, New Zealand jurisprudence proceeds on the basis that ‘persecution’ already encompasses ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’: AC (Syria) [2011] NZIPT 800035 [77]–[80] (Member Burson). 216 Department of Immigration and Border Protection (Cth), Asylum Trends, above n 81, 32. 217 Ibid. 218 For judicial interpretation of the term see Plaintiff M79/2012 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2013) 252 CLR 336, 350 [32], 353 [39] (French CJ, Crennan and Bell JJ); Plaintiff S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2012) 246 CLR 636, 648–9 [30]–[31] (French CJ and Kiefel J); O’Sullivan v Farrer (1989) 168 CLR 210, 216 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson and Gaudron JJ).