Legal stoush between Russia and Australia over embassy site near Parliament House reaches the High Court
The dispute is over a law passed in 2023 which cancelled Russia's lease on the block, which is only 300 metres from Parliament House.
At the time, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the law was needed on national security grounds.
But a Russian spokesperson characterised it as a hostile action, showing "Russophobic hysteria".
Now, the fight has arrived at the High Court of Australia.
It all began nicely enough in 2008 when the Australian government granted the lease on the site to Russia to build a new embassy.
The site is in the so-called "dress circle" around Parliament House in Canberra's leafy Yarralumla, near the Canadian, British and Chinese diplomatic missions.
The new embassy was to replace Russia's low-profile building in Griffith, and would have included residential buildings as well as a large pool.
But after what Russia says was a dispute with a builder, and then COVID-19 delays, the main embassy buildings had still not materialised.
That triggered moves by the National Capital Authority to revoke the lease, creating a sticky legal and diplomatic situation, especially after Russia won a case in the Federal Court.
Parliament stepped in in 2023, passing the law in a bid to head off the dispute, after advice from security agencies.
Professor of International Law at the Australian National University, Don Rothwell, said nothing like this had happened in Canberra before.
He said advances in technology may have been a factor in the decision to make the law.
"The way in which embassies can eavesdrop on various activities of government, including Parliament House, has ... enhanced in recent years," Professor Rothwell said.
Russia has fought the case all the way.
A Russian diplomat even occupied the site for a time, refusing to leave so Australia could take control of the block.
Today lawyers for Russia will tell the High Court the law is not valid because under the constitution, the parliament doesn't have the power to make such legislation.
Russia has taken particular aim at the claim the law was necessary on national security grounds.
"There is no evidence that the plaintiff was planning an internal attack such that termination of the lease was for the purpose of protecting Australia from an internal attack," the Russian submissions to the High Court say.
But the Commonwealth submissions rely on the fact that "specific advice" was received about the nature of the construction that was planned and the capacity the location of the site would provide the Russian mission.
"Parliament's power is at its zenith when it legislates to protect its own security, because if parliament cannot ensure the security of the very place where it meets then it cannot ensure a practical precondition to the exercise of Commonwealth legislative power," the Commonwealth submissions to the High Court said.
The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation advice on which the legislation was based has not been revealed to the High Court, because it is protected by public interest immunity.
The Russians have told the High Court if they should lose on the first argument, and the law is found to be valid, they are entitled to "just terms" for the loss of the site.
The Commonwealth said in its submissions the termination of the lease is far removed from the usual acquisition of property which attracts such compensation.
"The constitutional conception of 'just terms' does not extend to requiring a foreign state to be compensated for actions … in order to address the risk of that foreign state interfering with Australia's democratic institutions," the submissions said.
Professor Rothwell said that "the key question here is whether or not the termination of the lease is actually an acquisition of property for those purposes".
He said Russia's pursuit of the case was probably a matter of principle.
"Ultimately a good outcome for Russia could be that the Commonwealth is ordered to pay them certain compensation with respect to the question of the acquisition of this property."
In the meantime Professor Rothwell said the current case had put other diplomatic missions on notice.
"They are also aware of the fact that when they occupy an embassy — or in this case, they're seeking to build a new embassy — [that] they very much have to work with the Australian government and their principal interlocutor as the Department of Foreign Affairs," Professor Rothwell said.
For the moment, the site remains vacant.
It may be a prime position, but finding the right tenant is a whole other exercise.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
12 minutes ago
- ABC News
Donald Trump says he wants to stop Vladimir Putin's 'war machine' but his sanctions–tariffs combo could backfire
Donald Trump is searching for a way to end the bloodshed in Ukraine and the US president's latest plan involves combining two of his favourite punishments: more sanctions, more tariffs. This time, it's where they're going — far from the front lines — that's important. And some analysts are warning it could backfire. After weeks of bluster, things got real on Wednesday with an executive order for an additional 25 per cent levies on all US imports from India. Combined with the 25 per cent "reciprocal" tariff announced last week, it becomes a 50 per cent tariff on a country Trump said was fuelling the "war machine" by buying billions of dollars of Russian oil. The White House has flagged more announcements in the coming days. Trump is trying to dig an economic hole around Moscow so big it forces his counterpart there, Vladimir Putin, back to the negotiating table. It's a simple strategy. Measures designed to hurt Russia's finances that have been in place for years will effectively be expanded to include those who line the Kremlin's pockets. India and China have already been singled out for what's known as secondary sanctions. Combined with new tariffs, like those announced on Wednesday, the US could end up being the one that pays the price. Russia has already been subjected to a multitude of penalties imposed by Western governments, including Australia, and their allies, before and after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Moscow's banks are blocked from accessing global financial markets. Oligarchs' assets abroad are frozen. Many countries have shunned trade. All this was designed to stop Putin's ability to fund his military. And yet, more than three years later, it continues to fight. It's become clear that ending the war will take something more. That's where the US president's new plan comes in. India's external affairs ministry released a statement on Wednesday calling the extra tariffs "extremely unfortunate" and warning the country would "take all actions necessary to protect its national interests". Michael O'Kane is a senior partner at London's Peters&Peters law firm and the co-founder of the Global Sanctions website, which tracks the latest developments in this space. He's sceptical about the effectiveness of secondary sanctions, because the West "continually underestimates Russia's ability to pivot and evade any new measures that are being put in place". "And I don't see any reason why that isn't going to continue." One of the main ways the Kremlin does this is by exporting its oil via a so-called "shadow fleet" of ships. It's estimated this force comprises around 1,400 aging tankers that supply a black market of exports and evade the West's naval net with flags of convenience and convoluted ownership structures. "We now have an under-the-radar network of vessels, agents and brokers who are engaged in this activity," O'Kane says. "The two main buyers are India and China, and they are hugely complex, enormous economies where there's a great deal of difficulty in putting some kind of stranglehold on them." Trump's sanctions/tariffs combination will have different repercussions for China, India and Russia, but experts say the US will be affected too. India's new 25 per cent levies are set to begin in 21 days, while previously announced 25 per cent tariffs will come into effect on Thursday. It means by the end of the month, New Delhi will face some of the highest levies on exports of all the US's trading partners. "With such obnoxious tariff rates, trade between the two nations would be practically dead," Madhavi Arora, an economist at Emkay Global, told the Reuters news agency. While that will hurt India more than the US, slapping new taxes on an important strategic partner could cause significant geopolitical consequences for Washington. "The United States security competition with China in the South China Sea and down into the Indian Ocean is a matter of significant concern to the White House," O'Kane says. "They need to have formidable allies. That's why we've seen this AUKUS arrangement being set up, it's all with the view of being able to contain China from a security perspective. "India plays an important role too, and it would seem to me as though taking action against India at this stage could undermine this effort." While India has begun to learn its fate, new US tariffs and secondary sanctions on China — a superpower with which it is currently locked in trade negotiations — haven't yet been revealed Beijing also welcomes Russia's oil, and immunity from Trump's wrath appears unlikely. Dr Patricia M Kim is a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Centre for Asia Policy Studies and John L Thornton China Centre. "It's hard to imagine Beijing would publicly side with Washington against Moscow or appear to bow to American pressure by cutting purchases of Russian oil," she says, adding any new tariffs announced by the White House would have consequences for Beijing and "deal a blow to Chian's export-driven sectors, especially those heavily reliant on the US market". "But it would hurt the US as well." Unlike its trade relationship with India, the US imports masses of cheap electronics and consumer goods from China's manufacturing hubs — all of which could become a lot more expensive for Americans already complaining about the cost of living. It also relies on rare earths from China, which accounts for almost 70 per cent of global production, to build things like planes, missiles and cars. Earlier this year, the US got a taste of how Beijing reacts to being targeted, when a suite of new tariffs were met with swift reciprocal measures. The world's two largest economies got into the ring, and while they've temporarily stopped throwing punches, the White House has hinted this week it may start again. Trump's new plan to try and put pressure on Russia may seem straightforward, but it could pave the way for a new reality after the guns fall silent in Ukraine, and some will find it frightening. Russia exploiting its new, lucrative black market. India cosying up to the Kremlin. And a disrespected China searching for new ways to punish a country that can't do without its wares.
News.com.au
12 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Kiama MP Gareth Ward to fight expulsion attempt by Labor government in Supreme Court
Convicted rapist and sitting MP Gareth Ward will return before the Supreme Court in Sydney's CBD today as he fights attempts by the Labor-controlled state government to have him expelled from parliament. The Kiama MP was taken into custody on remand last week while awaiting sentencing after he was found guilty by a jury of three counts of indecent assault and a fourth count of intercourse without consent. The charges relate to acts against two young men – an 18-year-old at Meroo Meadow in 2013 and a 24-year-old man in Potts Point in 2015 – and sparked calls for the south coast MP to resign from parliament. A motion was expected to be introduced by Labor to the Legislative Assembly to expel Ward, with support from the Coalition earlier this week. If successful, it would mark the first expulsion from the NSW lower house since 1917. Instead, the matter was set down for a full-day hearing at the Supreme Court after an 11th hour injunction was applied for by Ward's lawyers, who argue the state parliament does not have the power to expel him. The last-minute legal move makes it almost impossible to expel Ward, who is still being paid by parliament and is the current member for Kiama, before the Legislative Assembly adjourns until next month. Leader of the House Ron Hoenig earlier in the week said the court did not have the authority to stop matters being but before legislators, but that the state government would abide by the injunction out of respect. The matter sets the stage for a peculiar legal challenge. Premier Chris Minns told 2GB on Tuesday morning most people would 'appreciate it's an unconscionable situation to have someone who's currently sitting in jail in Silverwater convicted of serious sexual offences who is demanding to remain a member of parliament and continue to be paid'. Asked why Ward had not resigned, Mr Minns said 'clearly, he's got no shame'. Opposition Leader Mark Speakman said that, if the government was prepared, they could resume 'in the interim with a small quorum of MPs'. 'We would be willing to do that. It would be possible, for example, to have just 20 MPs, the quorum deal with the matter,' he said. Mr Speakman said 'As a general principle, we are supporting the government's efforts in court. 'That includes as a general principle the arguments that it's putting in court and the outcome that it seeks, which is that the injunction is lifted and the parliament can proceed to expel Mr Ward.' The injunctive orders issued by the court, 'pending further order', restrain the defendant, Mr Hoenig, from 'from taking any steps to expel or otherwise resolve to expel' Ward between July 30 and 10am on Friday.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Chalmers needs to show some courage to help save Australian economy
For the first Albanese government timidity resulted in another bite of the cherry. But, unfortunately, caution is lingering as a second-term hallmark, despite a massive landslide that gave Labor open slather to effect wide-ranging change. This month's Economic Reform Roundtable should have been the vehicle for substantial reform. But, amid the Productivity Commission recommendations for tax reform, unions calling for curbs on negative gearing, the capital gains discount and the use of family trusts, business groups railing against too much change and suggestions that the transition from fossil fuels to renewables be speeded up, the government appears to have lost some chutzpah. A day after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese talked down the roundtable's significance, Treasurer Jim Chalmers also started hosing down expectations, sending a clear message around parliament: excited observers should curb their enthusiasm. Beginning on August 19, the three-day Economic Reform Roundtable aims to build consensus on ways to improve productivity, enhance economic resilience and strengthen budget sustainability in the face of global uncertainty. It brings together a mix of leaders from business, unions, civil society and government. Some 900 submissions have been received and anticipations of change were running high. But the Herald' s chief political correspondent Paul Sakkal said cabinet had become concerned about the huge expectations stoked, and the summit is expected to produce a handful of policies to which Chalmers would immediately commit. Speedier approvals for energy projects, cutting red tape and new incentives for home building were seen as quick wins with wide support from warring unions and business lobbies. More significant changes that gain support from assorted experts, captains of industry and unions will be put off for further examination. The roundtable was already seen at risk of becoming a Canberra gabfest. But tax will undoubtedly be the elephant in the room, given Albanese's refusal to consider changing the GST, a veto that is already tying one of the government's hands behind its back. The exclusion of those major players in taxation and deregulation, states and territories, is another handicap. For a summit considering Australia's economic future, ignoring the GST seems blinkered, especially as economist Richard Holden and independent MHR Kate Chaney suggested to the Herald 's Shane Wright that a 15 per cent GST could deliver a $28 billion boost to government coffers while providing an annual $3300 rebate to all Australians as an offset. However, almost all other taxes are on the table. The Productivity Commission has proposed a company tax cut for smaller businesses, while larger companies pay more. New visions are required in a world where old certainties are quickly fading, and the one reality is that productivity is key to meeting future challenges. That said, courage and big ideas – including controversial reform of the GST – will help drive the Australian economy, not the risk aversion displayed by a Labor government too afraid for, or of, its own mandate to act for the greater good.
