transferred back to Australia for critical medical treatment under court orders or threat of legal action in a spate of urgent litigation known as the ‘Medevac’ cases between 2017 and 2020. As a result, the majority of refugees, including stateless people who were detained offshore, now reside on a temporary basis in Australia, where they have existed in a state of legal limbo since they were returned to Australia.38 Stateless people within Australia’s broader refugee cohort who have been permitted to apply for a temporary visa have for the most part spent the past decade living a life characterized by uncertainty; despite being recognised as refugees they have been required to reapply for temporary protection every three to five years. Those transferred to Nauru or Manus Island then subsequently returned to Australia exist either in immigration detention, under a ‘Residence Determination’ (community detention orders), or on a series of rolling Bridging Visas (usually 6 months in length) and are prohibited from ever applying for permanent protection in Australia. Many of these stateless families, including those interviewed for this Report, have children born in Australia who are now Australian citizens, while the parents remain on short-term rolling temporary visas with no prospects of permanency or naturalisation, simply due to the fact they spent time (however short) detained offshore. In February 2023, a newly elected Australian Labor Government announced that it would move TPV and SHEV holders onto permanent visas, offering essential security to many in Australia’s refugee population, including eligible stateless people also recognised as refugees.39 While the introduction of this permanent ‘Resolution of Status Visa’40 (RoS visa) is a welcome development, many asylum seekers, including stateless people, currently living in Australia remain ineligible to apply for any form of Australian visa (temporary or otherwise). They remain living in Australia in a state of legal limbo on a ‘transitory’ basis and remain at risk of removal to Nauru at any time, with little notice, discussed further below.41 Any new arrivals of stateless people entering Australia by sea also remain ineligible for any form of visa in Australia.42 The Australian Government has maintained its practice of turning boats back at sea, thus making it very difficult for stateless asylum seekers to arrive in Australia by such means. On 29 August 2025 an MOU was signed between the Australian and Nauruan governments reinstating a third country resettlement reception arrangement. The MOU has not been made public, raising concerns about transparency and the agreement’s compliance with Australia’s domestic and international human rights obligations.43 Nauru is not signatory to either of the two key Statelessness Conventions or other core international human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.44 In the absence of binding international obligations specific to statelessness, there are no guaranteed safeguards for the recognition, protection, or resolution of stateless status in Nauru. This will have real and significant implications for stateless individuals transferred by the Australian Government to Nauru. Stateless people may face prolonged legal limbo, lack access to identity documentation, and be excluded from pathways to citizenship or durable solutions. Unlike refugees, whose status may be formally assessed and protected under Nauruan law, stateless people risk being indefinitely marginalised without legal recognition or recourse, raising serious concerns under international human rights law.45 Of further concern is the Australian Government’s arrangement with Nauru to issue 30-year residence visas to individuals removed from Australia. Nauruan President David Adeang recently stated that ‘the long-term goal’ for people removed to Nauru ‘remains the eventual repatriation of these individuals to their home countries’.46 For stateless individuals repatriation is not a safe or feasible option, as they lack a country of nationality to which they can return. 2.2.4 Viewing citizenship through the lens of migration rather than as a tool of inclusive ‘nation building’ Our research indicated a broader structural and conceptual issue underpinning how statelessness and citizenship are conceptualised and understood within the Australian legal framework, as one based on exclusion rather than inclusion. This issue was identified and articulated by leading constitutional and citizenship academic Professor Kim Rubenstein: ‘Citizenship has always been conceived of in Australia through the lens of migration rather than through the lens of social cohesion, nation building, self-identity and it goes back really to the framing of the Constitution….around a White Australia Policy and the whole motivation for Federation was to work out a unified way of keeping out non-white Australians… So, the fact that the very underpinning of our Constitution has framed citizenship through migration rather than through national identity, nation building, who we are as a people… (T)he flow-on from that is that we have a framework of thinking about citizenship as exclusion. It’s a frame in order to determine who we can keep out rather than it being a frame for inclusion. So, if the framework was changed to think about citizenship as inclusion, about strengthening our community through both human rights protection for those who are vulnerable but also the value add… (I)f your premise was that we err on the side of inclusion rather than erring on the side of exclusion, we would see better decision making.” – Professor Kim Rubenstein Understanding Statelessness in Australia | Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness 19