Page:Government of the Russian Federation v Commonwealth of Australia.pdf/8

Jagot J

16 According to Dr Pavlovsky:

""In the event that:
 * a. the Commonwealth were to retake possession of the Land pending the outcome of the proceedings before the High Court; and


 * b. the GRF is successful in the proceedings""

the GRF would then be "highly likely to demolish the improvements already constructed on the Land to protect its interests".

17 The other affidavit on which the GRF relies is from a solicitor for the GRF, who has attached a newspaper article published on the Sydney Morning Herald website at about 10.22 am, which contains a quote:

""Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says, 'a bloke standing on a bit of grass' on the site where the government cancelled the lease of a second Russian embassy in Canberra does not represent a national security threat.""

18 Before the Act was passed and commenced, there was an Explanatory Memorandum prepared for the Home Affairs Bill 2023 (Cth). It contains a statement as follows :

""The object of the Bill is to protect Australia's national security interests with regard to land within the area adjacent to Parliament House.""

19 The Second Reading Speech for the Act records that the Bill establishes "an act for the termination of the lease held by the government of the Russian Federation on a parcel of land adjacent to Parliament House", and that "[t]his action does not preclude the Russian Federation from a diplomatic presence here in Canberra, which they maintain at their existing premises, in Griffith, Australian Capital Territory. The termination of the lease has no impact on their Griffith site. This legislation is consistent with Australia's obligations under international law."

20 The submissions made on behalf of the GRF are to the effect that the Act is not supported by a Commonwealth head of power because it is, in substance, a law with respect only "to the 'relevant lease'" or, more generally, is "a law with respect to property" in circumstances where the Commonwealth does not have a constitutional head of power as to either the relevant lease or property more