“I think statelessness is really a secondary consideration. The main consideration is if they have protection concerns, if they are a refugee, and then only in the context of detaining them or deporting them, does statelessness really come up as an issue… (I)t’s not an area that the Department talks about as a priority issue, or as an agenda item.” — Refugee Policy Expert Service providers report difficulty in distinguishing between the needs of stateless people and refugees, especially when both groups face resettlement challenges such as language barriers, trauma, and family separation. However, some service providers interviewed did note that stateless people may have unique vulnerabilities (distinct from refugees), including inability to return to any country, risk of prolonged detention, and difficulty substantiating identity due to lack of documentation (discussed further below). The overreliance on refugee protection visas for stateless people was identified as problematic by numerous research participants, resulting in legal practitioners essentially having to mould the unique characteristics and needs of their stateless clients to fit within the refugee protection framework. Considerations of a stateless person’s “country of former habitual residence”, required as part of the refugee determination process, were highlighted as a particular way in which the existing legal framework is not suitable for assessing statelessness. “When you’re doing a refugee claim and the person is stateless, you’re (required to) address their country of former habitual residence. It’s entire fiction, because you are talking about what would happen to them if they go back to this place that they have no right to return to. So, we’re going through this process, and everybody knows that what you’re talking about is just legal fiction, but it carries such huge consequences if you don’t tell the story right, in a way that the decision maker imagines is right, and it’s just imaginary.” — Ben Carrick, Australian Legal Practitioner, Refugee and Immigration Legal Service Australia’s complementary protection framework was also identified as inadequate for protecting stateless people. In 2012 ‘complementary protection’ was introduced into the Australian legal framework. Complementary protection allows people seeking asylum who do not meet the ‘refugee’ definition, but are still at risk of significant harm, to claim protection in Australia on the basis of Australia’s international human rights obligations.100 However to date, it has proved to be an inadequate basis of protection for stateless people in Australia.101 Trying to fit stateless people into existing criteria is not adequate or appropriate; a stand-alone legal framework for correctly identifying, protecting and naturalising stateless people in Australia is needed. 48 Peter McMullin Centre on Statelessness | Understanding Statelessness in Australia 4.3.3 Stateless people on bridging visas and ‘transitory persons’ face particular legal uncertainty that impacts multiple aspects of a person’s life Stateless people on bridging visas or classified as ‘transitory persons’ under Australian migration law face heightened vulnerabilities and challenges. These individuals often have limited access to welfare and/or social support services, live in legal uncertainty and are subject to ministerial discretion for visa outcomes. “So, the (stateless) transitory people on bridging visas, we do their bridging visas. We’ve got about 180 on our books; not all are stateless but some of this cohort are. And we’ve done a small number of “Ministerials” (requests to the Minister to exercise their personal discretion under legislation to intervene in favour of the stateless applicant) for really, really exceptional situations, without much hope that they will go anywhere.” — Ben Carrick, Australian Legal Practitioner, Refugee and Immigration Legal Service This cohort of stateless people in Australia are often excluded from welfare support and access to various services. Depending on the type of short term “Bridging Visa” they are on, they may be prohibited from working and/or studying. The legal cases for this cohort are usually prolonged and complex because of the legislative regime they are subjected to. They either exist on a series of rolling six month Bridging Visas or are subjected to detention (including in the community) with no ability to apply for any form of visa. Without a clear pathway to permanent status they remain in limbo, unable to establish themselves in Australia, support their family or access basic rights. “So even though I work full time, I contribute to the community, to the economy, I pay taxes, all these things, I don’t have any robust thing in return. I’m allowed to stay here legally because of the bridging visa, but I don’t have access to the rights or services that Australian citizens would have access to…I’m trying to be grateful that I have this opportunity to stay in a safe country. But the other thing is I’m not allowed to travel either…I haven’t seen my family or anyone overseas since I came to Melbourne in 2020.” ­— Amira*