This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/aug/06/russia-takes-fight-over-cancellation-of-embassy-near-parliament-house-canberra-to-high-court

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Russia takes fight over cancellation of embassy near Parliament House to Australia’s high court Russia takes fight over cancellation of embassy near Parliament House to Australia’s high court
(32 minutes later)
Australia’s solicitor general tells high court Russia should not be paid compensation ‘for problems they cause themselves’Australia’s solicitor general tells high court Russia should not be paid compensation ‘for problems they cause themselves’
Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast
Russia has claimed the cancellation of its embassy lease in Canberra was illegal as lawyers for the Australian government argue in the nation’s highest court that the lease posed a security risk.Russia has claimed the cancellation of its embassy lease in Canberra was illegal as lawyers for the Australian government argue in the nation’s highest court that the lease posed a security risk.
Diplomatic tensions between Australia and Russia have played out in the high court after the Albanese government rushed laws through parliament in 2023 to cancel Russia’s lease on a plot of land where it planned to build a new embassy.Diplomatic tensions between Australia and Russia have played out in the high court after the Albanese government rushed laws through parliament in 2023 to cancel Russia’s lease on a plot of land where it planned to build a new embassy.
Russia at the time rejected the cancellation as “Russophobic hysteria” and an official even squatted on the land after the decision to frustrate any Australian effort to reclaim the plot.Russia at the time rejected the cancellation as “Russophobic hysteria” and an official even squatted on the land after the decision to frustrate any Australian effort to reclaim the plot.
The proposed Russian embassy plot is a few hundred metres away from Parliament House in Canberra. Russia entered a 99-year lease in 2008 to build a new embassy in Canberra but did not complete any developments on the plot.The proposed Russian embassy plot is a few hundred metres away from Parliament House in Canberra. Russia entered a 99-year lease in 2008 to build a new embassy in Canberra but did not complete any developments on the plot.
Australia’s prime minister, Anthony Albanese, cited advice from national security agencies about the proposed embassy’s proximity to parliament when justifying the action, but the intelligence was not aired in court.Australia’s prime minister, Anthony Albanese, cited advice from national security agencies about the proposed embassy’s proximity to parliament when justifying the action, but the intelligence was not aired in court.
Russia is arguing the case on two fronts: that the laws are unconstitutional because no evidence of a national security threat was put forward and, failing any reinstatement, it is entitled to compensation.Russia is arguing the case on two fronts: that the laws are unconstitutional because no evidence of a national security threat was put forward and, failing any reinstatement, it is entitled to compensation.
A Russian supporter waved the nation’s tri-coloured flag for hours outside the court while top silk Bret Walker SC flew the flag for Russia inside the courtroom on Wednesday.A Russian supporter waved the nation’s tri-coloured flag for hours outside the court while top silk Bret Walker SC flew the flag for Russia inside the courtroom on Wednesday.
Walker told the court it was “offensive” to assume people would willingly give up their property without compensation because national security grounds were invoked.Walker told the court it was “offensive” to assume people would willingly give up their property without compensation because national security grounds were invoked.
He cited an army barracks as an example, saying the commonwealth would be within its rights to acquire land around the structure to protect security but would be expected to pay compensation to the owners.He cited an army barracks as an example, saying the commonwealth would be within its rights to acquire land around the structure to protect security but would be expected to pay compensation to the owners.
Failing to do so meant it was “a compelled gift for the government”, he argued, referring to a clause in the constitution requiring reasonable compensation to be paid by the Commonwealth if it takes a person’s property. Failing to do so meant it was “a compelled gift for the government”, he argued, referring to a clause in the constitution requiring reasonable compensation to be paid by the commonwealth if it takes a person’s property.
Solicitor general Stephen Donaghue argued the commonwealth had the power and authority to make laws stripping the Russians of their lease.Solicitor general Stephen Donaghue argued the commonwealth had the power and authority to make laws stripping the Russians of their lease.
Compensation should not be paid to a nation “for problems they cause themselves”, he told the high court.Compensation should not be paid to a nation “for problems they cause themselves”, he told the high court.
But Walker branded the notion of taking land on pre-emptive national security grounds where no explicit threat had been proven without compensation “really disturbing”.But Walker branded the notion of taking land on pre-emptive national security grounds where no explicit threat had been proven without compensation “really disturbing”.
Such a precedent would mean “everyone is to be regarded, until proven otherwise, a terrorist threat”, he said.Such a precedent would mean “everyone is to be regarded, until proven otherwise, a terrorist threat”, he said.
“That’s absurd.”“That’s absurd.”
The high court reserved its decision.The high court reserved its decision.
Five Russian officials attended the hearing, with ambassador at large Sergey Makarov declining to comment until the decision was handed down.Five Russian officials attended the hearing, with ambassador at large Sergey Makarov declining to comment until the decision was handed down.
Prof Don Rothwell, an international law expert, doubted the strength of the Russian argument about the constitutional validity of the law.Prof Don Rothwell, an international law expert, doubted the strength of the Russian argument about the constitutional validity of the law.
“I don’t believe the Russian case is very strong on that point,” he told AAP.“I don’t believe the Russian case is very strong on that point,” he told AAP.
But he said the case could set a precedent for the commonwealth taking over embassy sites.But he said the case could set a precedent for the commonwealth taking over embassy sites.
However, Russia’s case had two major distinctions, Rothwell said.However, Russia’s case had two major distinctions, Rothwell said.
One was that because the Russian embassy had not been built, the argument for compensation was more fraught when compared to established premises foreign governments had already paid to construct, he said. One was that because the Russian embassy had not been built, the argument for compensation was more fraught when compared to established premises that foreign governments had already paid to construct, he said.
Additionally, foreign governments would be able to construct new embassies to a modern standard, he added, meaning there were security concerns about the inclusion of more advanced technology that could be used for espionage.Additionally, foreign governments would be able to construct new embassies to a modern standard, he added, meaning there were security concerns about the inclusion of more advanced technology that could be used for espionage.