432 Melbourne University Law Review [Vol 40:401 (b) either: (i) provides documentary evidence of his or her identity, nationality or citizenship; or (ii) has taken reasonable steps to provide such evidence.161 The statement of compatibility with human rights that accompanied this amendment acknowledged that ‘[t]he Government accepts that it may not be possible, in certain circumstances, for applicants to provide such documents, for instance during times of conflict in their home country or where they are stateless.’162 However, this is not reflected explicitly in the legislation and there is no guarantee that statelessness will be understood as a ‘reasonable explanation’163 for the above purposes. Indeed, analysis of the limited case law on s 91WA to date — none of which has involved stateless applicants — suggests that decision-makers do not readily accept that an explanation on the part of an applicant is ‘reasonable’ for the purposes of the s 91WA(2)(a) exception.164 Among decision-makers conducting merits review, there appears to be a lack of consistency in the methods used to assess statelessness. While some decision-makers only consider the applicant’s identity or travel documentation165 or the applicant’s evidence, others consider the applicant’s evidence 161 Migration Act ss 91WA(1)–(2). 162 Explanatory Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2014 (Cth), Attachment A, 6. 163 Migration Act s 91WA(2)(a). 164 Section 91WA of the Migration Act applies to all ongoing, ‘live’ applications for refugee and complementary protection as assessed after 18 April 2015, irrespective of when the application for protection was lodged: 1409422 [2015] RRTA 233 (29 April 2015) [14] (Member Mackinnon). In the published decisions (up until and including 14 March 2016) in which the applicants’ reasoning for providing a bogus document was not found to be ‘reasonable’, the Tribunal relied on assumptions as to what the applicant should have known about the visa application process in the relevant country (1417964 (Refugee) [2015] AATA 3959 (16 December 2015) [36]–[43] (Member Cranwell)) and assessments as to the applicants’ credibility, generally (1501366 (Refugee) [2015] AATA 3338 (18 August 2015) [43]–[52] (Member Kennedy); 1409771 (Refugee) [2015] AATA 3234 (23 July 2015) [53] (Member Jolliffe)). In only one of the decisions was the applicant’s ‘fear of persecution and desire to seek asylum’ found to be ‘a reasonable explanation for entering Australia on a bogus document’: 1409422 [2015] RRTA 233 (29 April 2015) [14] (Member Mackinnon). However, it must be noted that the applicant in 1409422 also provided ‘documentary evidence’ of their ‘identity, nationality or citizenship’, and such evidence contributed to the decision-maker’s overall finding that the applicant had provided a ‘reasonable explanation’: at [14]. 165 1113737 [2012] RRTA 958 (25 October 2012).