When he was twenty-five days old, his mother left with him to return to Australia, arriving here on 27 January 1974. Since then, Stefan Nystrom has never known any other country. His parents separated and divorced when he was five and there has been almost no contact with the Swedish relatives, whose names he did not know. He does not speak Swedish.

Mr Nystrom’s parents did not apply for citizenship for him, although he would readily have qualified. As a result, he was here as a permanent resident - on a “transitional (permanent) visa”, although he did not know that and had never had occasion to turn his mind to it. He had never sought a passport to travel overseas.

Mr Nystrom has a long criminal record, and has served a number of prison terms. As a result, in 2004 the Minister cancelled his visa on the grounds that he failed to pass the character test.

Mr Nystrom brought proceedings in the Federal Magistrates’ Court challenging the decision, arguing that he was in fact the holder of an “absorbed person visa” and the wrong visa had been cancelled. The Court rejected his argument, affirming the original decision.

Mr Nystrom then appealed to the Full Federal Court which overturned the decision. The majority held:

The Minister then appealed to the High Court which upheld the original decision. It held that Mr Nystrom’s absorbed person visa was not a relevant consideration that the Minister failed to take into account because the absorbed person visa was also cancelled upon cancellation of his transitional (permanent) visa. Mr Nystrom had qualified for and acquired simultaneously each of the deemed visas. However, the visas conferred the same rights and so the same considerations applied whichever visa was cancelled. The power conferred on the Minister to cancel a visa could therefore be exercised in Mr Nystrom’s case.

Following the High Court’s decision, Mr Nystrom was taken into custody. It is not clear why this happened – he had been out of trouble for some time and had properly attended whenever required. He was held in the Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre for some months until being deported on 29 December 2006 and arriving in Sweden on 31st December – his 33rd birthday.

Mr Nystrom’s elderly mother has little money and cannot afford to visit him in Sweden. She was not permitted to see her son off, possibly for the last time, from Melbourne Airport. Nor were other family members.

No one met Mr Nystrom in Sweden. He had no resources, no Swedish language, and no understanding of the culture. Australian authorities did nothing to organise accommodation, food, money or language training, or any emotional help for a person separated from his family.

Having been deported on character grounds, the law will not permit Mr Nystrom to return to Australia – even to visit his mother and sister.

Article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. But what is one’s “own country”? Citizenship gives one guide, but it is not the only one.

For all practical purposes, Mr Nystrom was entirely Australian. He had lived in the country for all but the first twenty-five days of his life, he had been educated here, and had even been under the care and protection of the State for some of his childhood. All his bonds are with this country. He would have been entitled to citizenship from a very early age had his parents known to apply for it.

Australia’s decision to treat Mr Nystrom in this way, after he had already served terms of imprisonment for his crimes, is harsh and arbitrary. It also represents a failure to take responsibility for problems we have created. Pushing our problems onto another country creates poor international relations.

Mr Nystrom and his family have applied to the United Nations Human Rights Committee for redress. Decisions of the Human Rights Committee are not binding, but governments are to respect them as part of their treaty obligations.

Mr Nystrom is not the only person being treated in this way by the Australian government at present. With scarcely credible cruelty, the Australian authorities are dumping people it does not want in other countries and washing their hands of responsibility. It is hoped that the Human Rights Committee will provide a human rights framework for more humane consideration of these cases in future.