{"id":"C2004A01897","name":"Diplomatic and Consular Missions Act 1978","slug":"diplomatic-and-consular-missions-act-1978","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":"98 of 1978","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":6867,"registerId":"commonwealth-C2004A01897-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-03-30","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Short title","content":"#### 1 Short title\n\n  This Act may be cited as the Diplomatic and Consular Missions Act 1978.","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"section","heading":"Commencement","content":"#### 2 Commencement\n\n  This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"section","heading":"Interpretation","content":"#### 3 Interpretation\n\n  (1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:\n\n> authorised capacity, in relation to a designated overseas mission, means a capacity specified in an instrument in force under paragraph 4(1)(b) of the Overseas Missions (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1995, where the instrument relates to the mission.\n\n> country means a country other than Australia or an external Territory.\n\n> Court means the Federal Court of Australia.\n\n> designated overseas mission has the same meaning as in the Overseas Missions (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1995.\n\n> foreign territory has the same meaning as in the Overseas Missions (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1995.\n\n> mission means a mission, agency or office.\n\n> office of a mission means an office of a mission or of a member of a mission, whether designated as an embassy, a chancery or a consulate, or in any other manner.\n\n> premises includes a part of premises.\n\n  (2) A reference in this Act to conduct shall be read as a reference to the doing of any act or thing either alone or in association with the doing of any other act or thing.","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"3A","sectionType":"section","heading":"Application of the Criminal Code","content":"#### 3A Application of the Criminal Code\n\n  Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code applies to all offences against this Act.\n\n> Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"4","sectionType":"section","heading":"Injunctions to restrain false claims about diplomatic or consular status or designated overseas mission status","content":"#### 4 Injunctions to restrain false claims about diplomatic or consular status or designated overseas mission status\n\n  (1) The Court may, on the application of the Attorney‑General, grant an injunction restraining a person:\n    (a) from engaging, or attempting to engage, in conduct that:\n    (i) is, in relation to a diplomatic or consular mission established in Australia with the consent of the Commonwealth, conduct to which this subsection applies by virtue of subsection (2); or\n    (ii) is, in relation to a designated overseas mission of a foreign territory, conduct to which this subsection applies by virtue of subsection (2A) or (2B);\n    (b) from aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring a person to engage in any such conduct;\n    (c) from inducing, or attempting to induce, a person, whether by threats, promises or otherwise, to engage in any such conduct; or\n    (d) from being in any way directly or indirectly a party to the engaging by a person in any such conduct.\n  (2) The conduct that is, in relation to a diplomatic or consular mission of a country established in Australia with the consent of the Commonwealth, conduct to which subsection (1) applies is:\n    (a) conduct by way of displaying, or causing or permitting to be displayed, either within, on or outside premises (other than premises at which an office of that mission or the residence of a member of that mission is located) any sign, flag or insignia that states, implies or is reasonably capable of being taken to imply that there is located at the premises an office of a mission, or the residence of a member of a mission, that represents, in a diplomatic or consular capacity, that country or a part of that country, the people of that country or of a part of that country or a government of that country or of a part of that country; or\n    (b) conduct by way of making or publishing, or causing or permitting to be made or published, any representation that states, implies or is reasonably capable of being taken to imply that there is located in Australia a mission (other than the diplomatic or consular mission of that country) or that a person in Australia occupies a position in a mission (other than the diplomatic or consular mission of that country), that represents, in a diplomatic or consular capacity, that country or a part of that country, the people of that country or of a part of that country or a government of that country or of a part of that country;\n  other than:\n    (c) conduct engaged in by a member of the staff (including the head) of a designated overseas mission in carrying out an authorised capacity of the designated overseas mission; or\n    (d) conduct engaged in at the request or direction of a member of the staff (including the head) of a designated overseas mission, where the conduct would have been covered by paragraph (c) if it had been engaged in by that staff member.\n  (2A) A person engages in conduct that is, in relation to a designated overseas mission of a foreign territory, conduct to which subsection (1) applies if:\n    (a) the person displays, or causes or permits to be displayed, any sign, flag or insignia; and\n    (b) the sign, flag or insignia is displayed within, on or outside any premises; and\n    (c) the premises are not:\n    (i) premises of the designated overseas mission; or\n    (ii) the residence of a member of the staff (including the head) of the designated overseas mission; and\n    (d) the sign, flag or insignia states, implies or is reasonably capable of being taken to imply that there is located at the premises an office of a mission, or the residence of a member of a mission, that represents, in a capacity that corresponds to an authorised capacity of the designated overseas mission:\n    (i) that foreign territory or a part of that foreign territory; or\n    (ii) the people of that foreign territory or of a part of that foreign territory; or\n    (iii) a government of that foreign territory or of a part of that foreign territory; and\n    (e) the conduct is neither:\n    (i) engaged in, in a diplomatic or consular capacity, by a member of a diplomatic or consular mission established in Australia with the consent of the Commonwealth; nor\n    (ii) engaged in at the request or direction of a member of such a diplomatic or consular mission, where the conduct would have been covered by subparagraph (i) if it had been engaged in by the member.\n  (2B) A person also engages in conduct that is, in relation to a designated overseas mission of a foreign territory, conduct to which subsection (1) applies if:\n    (a) the person makes or publishes, or causes or permits to be made or published, any representation; and\n    (b) the representation states, implies or is reasonably capable of being taken to imply that:\n    (i) there is located in Australia a mission (other than the designated overseas mission of that foreign territory); or\n    (ii) a person in Australia occupies a position in a mission (other than the designated overseas mission of that foreign territory);\n    that represents, in a capacity that corresponds to an authorised capacity of the designated overseas mission:\n    (iii) that foreign territory or a part of that foreign territory; or\n    (iv) the people of that foreign territory or of a part of that foreign territory; or\n    (v) a government of that foreign territory or of a part of that foreign territory; and\n    (c) the conduct is neither:\n    (i) engaged in, in a diplomatic or consular capacity, by a member of a diplomatic or consular mission established in Australia with the consent of the Commonwealth; nor\n    (ii) engaged in at the request or direction of a member of such a diplomatic or consular mission, where the conduct would have been covered by subparagraph (i) if it had been engaged in by the member.\n  (3) Where, in the opinion of the Court, it is desirable to do so, the Court may grant an interim injunction pending determination of an application under subsection (1).\n  (4) The Court may rescind or vary an injunction under subsection (1) or (3).\n  (5) Where an application is made to the Court for the granting of an injunction restraining a person from engaging in conduct of a particular kind, being conduct referred to in subsection (1), the Court may:\n    (a) if it is satisfied that the person has engaged in conduct of that kind—grant an injunction under subsection (1) restraining the person from engaging in conduct of that kind; or\n    (b) if, in the opinion of the Court, it is desirable to do so—grant an interim injunction under subsection (3) restraining the person from engaging in conduct of that kind.\n  (6) Where an application is made to the Court for the granting of an injunction restraining a person from engaging in conduct of a particular kind, being conduct referred to in subsection (1), the Court may:\n    (a) if it appears to the Court that, in the event that an injunction is not granted, it is likely that the person will engage in conduct of that kind—grant an injunction under subsection (1) restraining the person from engaging in conduct of that kind; or\n    (b) if, in the opinion of the Court, it is desirable to do so—grant an interim injunction under subsection (3) restraining the person from engaging in conduct of that kind;\n  whether or not the person has previously engaged in conduct of that kind.\n  (7) Where the Attorney‑General makes an application to the Court for the granting of an injunction under this section, the Court shall not require the Attorney‑General or any other person, as a condition of granting an interim injunction, to give any undertakings as to damages.","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"5","sectionType":"section","heading":"Removal of signs etc.","content":"#### 5 Removal of signs etc.\n\n  (1) Where, in a proceeding under section 4 for an injunction (including an interim injunction), the Court has found that conduct by way of displaying a sign or flag, or insignia, either within, on or outside premises, or by way of causing or permitting a sign or flag, or insignia, to be so displayed, constitutes conduct that is, in relation to a diplomatic or consular mission or a designated overseas mission, conduct to which subsection 4(1) applies, the Court may, upon application made by the Attorney‑General, issue a warrant authorizing the Sheriff, or a Deputy Sheriff, of the Court, with such assistance as the Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff deems necessary, to remove the sign, flag or insignia from the premises, or to obliterate the sign, flag or insignia on the premises, as the case requires, and, at any time and from time to time while the warrant is in force, to remove or to obliterate, as the case requires, any similar or substantially similar sign, flag or insignia that may subsequently be displayed, within, on or outside the premises.\n  (2) An application for the issue of a warrant under subsection (1) may be included in an application to the Court under section 4 for an injunction (including an interim injunction) or may be made to the Court as a separate application.\n  (3) A warrant issued by the Court under subsection (1) may authorize entry, if necessary by force, onto or into the premises for the purpose of removing or obliterating the sign, flag, or insignia.\n  (4) Where a warrant under this section authorizes entry onto or into premises, the warrant shall state whether entry is authorized to be made at any time of the day or night or only during specified hours of the day or night.\n  (5) A warrant under this section shall specify the period for which it is to remain in force, being a period not exceeding 6 months, but may be revoked by the Court at any time before the expiration of the period so specified.\n  (6) Subsection (5) shall not be construed as preventing the issue of a further warrant.\n  (7) Where a sign or flag, or insignia, is removed by the Sheriff or a Deputy Sheriff in pursuance of a warrant issued under this section, it shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of in such manner as the Minister directs.","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"6","sectionType":"section","heading":"Certificates by Minister","content":"#### 6 Certificates by Minister\n\n  (1) The Minister may, for the purposes of this Act, give a certificate, in writing:\n    (a) certifying that a specified mission is, or is not, a diplomatic or consular mission of a country established in Australia with the consent of the Commonwealth;\n    (b) certifying that there is, or is not, located at specified premises an office of a diplomatic or consular mission of a country established in Australia with the consent of the Commonwealth; or\n    (c) certifying that there is, or is not, located at specified premises the residence of a member of a diplomatic or consular mission of a country established in Australia with the consent of the Commonwealth.\n  (1A) The Minister may, for the purposes of this Act, give a written certificate:\n    (a) certifying that a specified mission is, or is not, a designated overseas mission of a foreign territory; or\n    (b) certifying that there is, or is not, located at specified premises an office of a designated overseas mission of a foreign territory; or\n    (c) certifying that there is, or is not, located at specified premises the residence of a member of the staff (including the head) of a designated overseas mission of a foreign territory; or\n    (d) certifying that a specified capacity is an authorised capacity of a designated overseas mission of a foreign territory.\n  (2) In any proceedings under section 4 or 5, a certificate given under this section is prima facie evidence of the fact certified.","sortOrder":6},{"sectionNumber":"7","sectionType":"section","heading":"Jurisdiction of the Court","content":"#### 7 Jurisdiction of the Court\n\n  Jurisdiction is conferred on the Court to hear and determine applications under sections 4 and 5.","sortOrder":7}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":5,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The original 1978 Act appears to have dealt only with false claims about diplomatic and consular missions of sovereign countries. The addition of sections 3(1) definition of 'authorised capacity', 4(2A), 4(2B), and 6(1A) — all referencing the Overseas Missions (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1995 — significantly expanded the scope to cover 'designated overseas missions' of foreign territories. This reflects the later development of Australia's relationship with territories like Taiwan (represented by the Australian Office in Taipei and its counterpart in Australia), creating a parallel regulatory scheme for entities that are not full diplomatic missions but have some official status. The Act now regulates false claims about two distinct categories of international representation, not just traditional embassies and consulates."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple overlapping conduct categories: the Act distinguishes between diplomatic/consular missions (subsection 4(2)) and designated overseas missions (subsections 4(2A) and 4(2B)), with slightly different elements for each","Nested exceptions: subsection 4(2) contains exceptions in paragraphs (c) and (d) for designated overseas mission staff; subsections 4(2A) and 4(2B) contain parallel exceptions for diplomatic/consular mission staff","Cross-referencing to external legislation: terms like 'designated overseas mission', 'foreign territory', and 'authorised capacity' are defined by reference to the Overseas Missions (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1995","Complex conditional logic in section 4: subsections (5) and (6) create alternative pathways for granting injunctions based on past conduct, likelihood of future conduct, or desirability of interim relief","8 defined terms in section 3, some with recursive or external definitions","Dual certificate powers in section 6: separate subsections (1) and (1A) for diplomatic missions versus designated overseas missions, creating parallel but not identical certification schemes"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this law does:**\n\nThis Act stops people from falsely pretending to be diplomatic or consular representatives in Australia. It gives the Federal Court power to issue **injunctions** (court orders telling someone to stop doing something) to prevent people from:\n\n- Displaying signs, flags or symbols that falsely suggest a building is an embassy, consulate, or diplomat's residence\n- Making false claims that they represent a foreign country or territory in an official diplomatic capacity\n\n**Who it affects:**\n\n- Anyone trying to pass off a building as an official diplomatic mission when it isn't\n- Anyone falsely claiming to be a diplomat or consular official\n- The Attorney-General, who can bring court cases under this Act\n- The Minister for Foreign Affairs, who can issue official certificates about which missions are legitimate\n\n**Why it matters:**\n\nDiplomatic status carries serious legal privileges and protections. This law prevents fraudsters from:\n- Misleading people into thinking they have diplomatic immunity\n- Creating fake \"embassies\" to scam people or gain undeserved respectability\n- Undermining Australia's control over which foreign missions operate here\n\nThe law also covers **designated overseas missions** — these are special representative offices of territories that aren't fully independent countries (like Taiwan's economic and cultural offices). The Act stops people from falsely claiming to represent these entities too.\n\n**Key powers:**\n- The Court can order signs taken down or destroyed\n- The Sheriff can enter premises (by force if needed) to remove false signage\n- The Minister's certificates about what is or isn't a real mission are treated as strong evidence in court"},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The Act has not expanded significantly beyond its original purpose of preventing false claims about diplomatic or consular status. Amendments added coverage for designated overseas missions but did not change the core scope."},"complexity_factors":["Short Act with only 7 sections","Few defined terms (e.g., 'mission', 'premises')","Simple injunction mechanism with clear conditions","Limited cross-references to other Acts (e.g., Overseas Missions (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1995, Criminal Code)"],"plain_english_summary":"This law stops people from pretending a location is part of an official diplomatic or consular mission (like an embassy or consulate) when it is not. It only applies to missions that the Australian government has agreed to. If someone displays a sign, flag, or makes a statement that falsely suggests a place is a diplomatic or consular office or a diplomat's home, the Attorney-General can ask the Federal Court to order them to stop. The Court can also issue a warrant to remove or destroy such signs or flags. The Minister can issue certificates stating what is or is not an official mission or office, which the Court accepts as evidence. The law also covers similar false claims about certain overseas missions (non-diplomatic missions representing foreign territories). It aims to prevent confusion about which premises have diplomatic status."},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[{"type":"other","section":"4(5) and 4(6)","severity":"low","reasoning":"Section 4(5) allows an injunction where the person 'has engaged' in the conduct. Section 4(6) allows an injunction where it 'appears likely' the person will engage in the conduct, 'whether or not' they have previously done so. The 'whether or not' qualifier in 4(6) means 4(6)(a) entirely swallows 4(5)(a) — if the Court can grant a prospective injunction regardless of prior conduct, there is no exclusive domain left for 4(5). Both subsections also independently permit interim injunctions under the same desirability test, making 4(5)(b) and 4(6)(b) identical in operation. The duplication adds interpretive noise without adding legal clarity.","confidence":0.72,"description":"Sections 4(5) and 4(6) both address applications for injunctions but set out overlapping and potentially redundant parallel pathways to the same remedy, creating a structurally duplicative framework with no meaningful distinction in practical outcome."},{"type":"other","section":"4(2)(c) and 4(2)(d)","severity":"medium","reasoning":"Section 4(2) prohibits false representations about diplomatic or consular missions of a 'country' (s3 defines 'country' as other than Australia or an external Territory). The carve-outs at 4(2)(c) and (d) exempt conduct by staff of a 'designated overseas mission', which is defined by reference to the Overseas Missions (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1995 and relates to foreign territories — a legally distinct concept from a 'country'. A designated overseas mission of a foreign territory is not the same as a diplomatic or consular mission of a country. The exemptions therefore import a concept from a different legal framework and apply it to protect conduct that may have no logical connection to the prohibition being carved out of, potentially exempting conduct that was never in scope or, conversely, failing to exempt conduct that logically should be.","confidence":0.68,"description":"The exemptions in 4(2)(c) and (d) for conduct by or at the direction of designated overseas mission staff are carved out of section 4(2) which deals with diplomatic or consular missions of a country — a conceptually distinct category — creating a logical mismatch where the exemption references a different statutory regime."},{"type":"impossible_compliance","section":"5(7)","severity":"low","reasoning":"The Sheriff removes signage pursuant to a court warrant but the ultimate fate of the removed material depends entirely on a Ministerial direction that may never come. There is no fallback, no deemed disposal, no timeframe, and no obligation imposed on the Minister. Property could be held in storage with no legal authority for its final disposal if the Minister fails to act. This creates an open-ended custody situation with no resolution mechanism.","confidence":0.75,"description":"Section 5(7) directs that removed signs and insignia be destroyed or disposed of 'as the Minister directs', but provides no mechanism, timeframe, or obligation for the Minister to actually issue such a direction, potentially leaving removed property in legal limbo indefinitely."},{"type":"circular_definition","section":"3 (definition of 'country')","severity":"low","reasoning":"The definition presupposes the reader knows what a 'country' is in the international sense and merely carves out Australia and external Territories. It does not address edge cases such as disputed territories, states with limited international recognition, or territories undergoing transition. This is particularly significant given the Act deals with diplomatic recognition, where the status of an entity as a 'country' may itself be contested and legally consequential.","confidence":0.65,"description":"The definition of 'country' as 'a country other than Australia or an external Territory' is circular in that it uses the ordinary meaning of 'country' to define 'country', merely excluding two categories, without providing a substantive definition of what qualifies as a 'country' in the first place."},{"type":"other","section":"5(1)","severity":"medium","reasoning":"The warrant power extends prospectively to future displays of 'similar or substantially similar' signage during the warrant's life. This means the Sheriff can unilaterally determine whether future signage is 'substantially similar' — a qualitative legal judgment — and act upon it without returning to the Court. This bypasses the judicial determination required for the original warrant, delegating what is effectively a contempt-adjacent enforcement decision to a court officer without procedural safeguards for the affected party.","confidence":0.78,"description":"Section 5(1) authorises the Sheriff to remove or obliterate 'any similar or substantially similar sign, flag or insignia that may subsequently be displayed' without requiring a further court finding that such subsequent signage constitutes prohibited conduct, effectively granting executive enforcement of an anticipatory prohibition."}],"contradictions":[{"severity":"low","section_a":"4(5)(a)","section_b":"4(6)(a)","confidence":0.76,"description":"Section 4(5)(a) conditions an injunction on satisfaction that the person 'has engaged' in the conduct (past conduct). Section 4(6)(a) permits an injunction based on likelihood of future conduct 'whether or not the person has previously engaged in conduct of that kind'. Section 4(6) thus renders 4(5) redundant — the broader test in 4(6) encompasses all circumstances covered by 4(5) and more, making 4(5) a subset with no independent operation."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"4(2) (conduct re diplomatic/consular missions of a 'country')","section_b":"4(2A) and 4(2B) (conduct re designated overseas missions of a 'foreign territory')","confidence":0.66,"description":"Sections 4(2A)(e) and 4(2B)(c) exempt conduct engaged in 'in a diplomatic or consular capacity' by members of diplomatic or consular missions of a 'country'. However, section 4(2)(c) and (d) exempt conduct by staff of a 'designated overseas mission'. The two regimes provide asymmetric exemptions: conduct relating to designated overseas missions can be exempted by reference to conventional diplomatic missions (4(2A)(e)), but the converse pathway — exempting conduct about conventional missions by reference to designated overseas mission authority — is not equally structured. This creates an asymmetric and potentially inconsistent exemption framework."},{"severity":"medium","section_a":"6(2)","section_b":"4(1) and 5(1)","confidence":0.7,"description":"Section 6(2) provides that Ministerial certificates are only 'prima facie evidence' of the certified facts in proceedings under sections 4 and 5. This means a defendant could rebut a Ministerial certificate as to whether a mission is legitimately established or recognised. However, the substantive determinations in sections 4(2), 4(2A), and 4(2B) are framed as objective legal questions. Allowing rebuttal of the Ministerial certificate on mission status creates a tension: a court could find facts contrary to the Minister's certification and grant or refuse an injunction accordingly, undermining the executive's role in recognising foreign missions — a matter traditionally within executive prerogative."}]},"summary":{"complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The Act originally (1978) focused solely on preventing false claims about diplomatic or consular missions of recognised foreign countries. Its scope was later expanded — most notably through amendments referencing the Overseas Missions (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1995 — to also cover 'designated overseas missions' of 'foreign territories' (i.e., entities that are not fully recognised sovereign countries but have some official representative status). This reflects Australia's need to accommodate quasi-diplomatic relationships with territories like Taiwan without extending full diplomatic recognition."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple overlapping subsections (2), (2A), and (2B) in section 4 create parallel but distinct legal tests for different types of missions","Requires cross-referencing a separate Act (Overseas Missions (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1995) to understand key defined terms like 'designated overseas mission', 'authorised capacity', and 'foreign territory'","Distinction between 'diplomatic or consular missions' and 'designated overseas missions' creates two regulatory tracks that must be tracked simultaneously","Layered exclusions and carve-outs (paragraphs (c) and (d) in s4(2), and subparagraphs in (2A)(e) and (2B)(c)) require careful reading to understand who is exempted","Section 4 subsections (5) and (6) create separate grounds for granting injunctions (past conduct vs anticipated conduct) which adds procedural nuance","The warrant mechanism in section 5, including provisions for forced entry, time restrictions, and destruction of removed items, adds an enforcement layer rarely seen in civil injunction statutes"],"plain_english_summary":"## Diplomatic and Consular Missions Act 1978\n\n### What does this law do?\nThis Act protects the integrity of Australia's diplomatic and consular system by making it illegal to **pretend to be an official foreign mission or diplomat** when you're not one.\n\n### Who does it target?\nAnyone who falsely claims — through signs, flags, symbols, or statements — that their premises or organisation represents a foreign country, foreign territory, or its people in an official diplomatic or consular capacity, when no such official recognition exists.\n\n### Why does it matter?\nForeign missions (like embassies and consulates) operate in Australia only with the Commonwealth Government's permission. This Act prevents dodgy operators from setting up fake 'embassies' or 'consulates' and misleading Australians or foreign nationals into thinking they're dealing with an officially recognised foreign government representative.\n\n### How does it work in practice?\n- The **Attorney-General** (Australia's chief law officer) can apply to the **Federal Court** for an injunction (a court order telling someone to stop doing something) against anyone making false claims about diplomatic or consular status.\n- The Court can also issue a **warrant** allowing court officers to physically remove or obliterate fake signs, flags, or insignia from premises — even by force if necessary.\n- The **Minister for Foreign Affairs** can issue a certificate confirming whether a mission is or isn't officially recognised, and that certificate is treated as strong evidence in court proceedings.\n- The law was extended to cover **designated overseas missions** — official missions of territories that aren't fully recognised countries (think Taiwan-style situations).\n\n### Who is protected from this law?\nLegitimate members of officially recognised diplomatic or consular missions acting within their authorised roles are explicitly excluded from liability.\n\n### Bottom line\nIf you put up a sign claiming to be the 'Embassy of Country X' without the Australian Government's blessing, the Attorney-General can haul you into Federal Court and have your sign torn down."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/diplomatic-and-consular-missions-act-1978","history":"/api/acts/diplomatic-and-consular-missions-act-1978/history","analysis":"/api/acts/diplomatic-and-consular-missions-act-1978/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/diplomatic-and-consular-missions-act-1978/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/diplomatic-and-consular-missions-act-1978/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/diplomatic-and-consular-missions-act-1978/documents"}}