The Claim
“Introduced a bill to allow the government to cancel any international agreements between universities, councils or sports institutions and other countries.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim refers to the Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020, introduced by Scott Morrison's Coalition government [1]. The bill was passed by Parliament and received Royal Assent on December 10, 2020, becoming the Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Act 2020 [2]. The claim is substantially accurate regarding universities and councils but contains a significant error regarding sports institutions.
The legislation definitively covers public universities and local government councils [3]. The Minister for Foreign Affairs can cancel existing arrangements between these entities and foreign governments if the Minister determines the arrangement would "adversely affect Australia's foreign relations, or is inconsistent with Australia's foreign policy" [4]. However, sporting bodies were not included in the final legislation despite being the subject of unsuccessful amendments during parliamentary consideration [5].
The legislation was bipartisan—the Labor Party backed the bill during parliamentary passage, though Senator Penny Wong criticised the government for rushing it and blocking Labor amendments [6].
Missing Context
The claim uses past tense ("Introduced a bill"), which is technically accurate but misleading—the bill did not remain a proposal. It became law and has been operational since December 10, 2020 [2]. This distinction is important because it suggests the legislation was controversial enough to stall, when in fact it passed with both government and opposition support.
Additionally, the claim's scope of "any international agreements" requires clarification. The legislation applies specifically to written formal "arrangements" between covered entities and foreign governments or foreign government entities [4]. Not all international cooperation arrangements would necessarily fall within the scope—the government must notify and review arrangements according to defined criteria.
A critical procedural context is missing: the legislation explicitly states the Minister "is not required to observe any requirements of procedural fairness" when making cancellation decisions [7]. This means affected institutions cannot request reasons, appeal the decision, or seek merit review. The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 explicitly excludes these decisions from judicial review [7].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original sources provided are mainstream outlets. The Conversation is an academic publication featuring peer-reviewed analysis by university researchers [1]. The Guardian is a major Australian and international news organisation [2]. Both articles were published in 2020 during parliamentary consideration of the bill, so they represent contemporary analysis rather than retrospective critique. However, both sources were published before the bill's passage and therefore reflect pre-enactment concerns rather than post-enactment analysis of actual impact.
The Guardian article headline mentions universities being "blindsided," which reflects institutional concern but is opinion-framing rather than neutral reporting. The Conversation article title ("should not pass parliament") explicitly signals advocacy for a particular outcome. Both sources are credible but represent concerned institutional and academic perspectives rather than neutral analysis.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
The Labor Party did not propose equivalent legislation during their time in government (2007-2013). However, the foreign relations issue was not a significant point of partisan dispute—Labor backed this Coalition bill during parliamentary consideration [6].
The precedent actually came from the states: Victoria's Labor government introduced a similar state-level bill (Victorian Foreign Investment Review Scheme) to review state government agreements [8], though this had a different scope focused on investment rather than all arrangements. This indicates that multilevel government oversight of foreign relations is not inherently partisan.
The key finding is that Labor did not oppose the federal Foreign Relations Bill on principle—they supported its passage while seeking amendments. This is not a unique Coalition initiative but a legislative approach that crossed party lines.
Balanced Perspective
While the legislation grants significant ministerial power, the government's rationale was national security concerns and the need to ensure state and institutional agreements aligned with Australian foreign policy [1]. This followed years of concerns about state and institutional agreements that were sometimes made without federal consultation, particularly regarding Chinese partnerships through the Belt and Road Initiative framework.
However, legitimate institutional concerns about the legislation are substantial. Universities Australia estimated over 10,000 agreements would require government notification, creating significant compliance burden [3]. The lack of appeal mechanisms, procedural fairness requirements, and the exclusion of decisions from judicial review raise important questions about institutional autonomy and proportionality [7]. These concerns were not addressed through legislative safeguards despite Labor amendments proposing them.
The legislation has been actively used in practice—on April 21, 2021, the Commonwealth Minister for Foreign Affairs announced cancellation of two memoranda of understanding between the Victorian government and Chinese government regarding Belt and Road Initiative participation [5]. This demonstrates the power is not merely theoretical.
Key context: This is not unique to the Coalition—Labor supported the bill's passage, and similar state-level mechanisms exist in other Australian states. However, the absence of procedural fairness, appeals mechanisms, and judicial review is unusual for Australian administrative law and represents a distinctive policy approach. The inclusion of sports institutions in the claim is inaccurate, as they were explicitly excluded from the final legislation despite consideration during drafting.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.5
out of 10
The claim is substantially accurate regarding the bill's introduction and its application to universities and councils. However, the claim contains a significant factual error: sports institutions were not included in the final legislation, despite being subject to discussion during parliamentary consideration. Additionally, the claim's phrasing using past tense ("Introduced a bill") understates that the legislation passed Parliament, received Royal Assent, and has been operational for over three years. The claim is accurate about what the legislation does but incomplete regarding which institutions are actually covered.
Final Score
6.5
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The claim is substantially accurate regarding the bill's introduction and its application to universities and councils. However, the claim contains a significant factual error: sports institutions were not included in the final legislation, despite being subject to discussion during parliamentary consideration. Additionally, the claim's phrasing using past tense ("Introduced a bill") understates that the legislation passed Parliament, received Royal Assent, and has been operational for over three years. The claim is accurate about what the legislation does but incomplete regarding which institutions are actually covered.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (8)
-
1
Morrison's foreign relations bill should not pass parliament - The Conversation
The proposed bill represents a massive over-reach that will do far more harm than good.
The Conversation -
2
Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Act 2020 - Federal Register of Legislation
Federal Register of Legislation
-
3
Why unis are worried about a federal power to cancel their foreign 'arrangements' - The Conversation
It’s all in the details: the wide-ranging powers hinge on the yet-to-be-defined ‘institutional autonomy’ of foreign partners that enter into agreements with Australian public universities.
The Conversation -
4
What would Australia's Foreign Relations Bill mean for governments, entities, universities and industry - MinterEllison
What would Australia's Foreign Relations Bill mean for governments, government entities, universities and industry? Our team discusses.
Insight -
5
What is the effect of Australia's new foreign relations law - East Asia Forum
Australian universities, councils and state governments will need to work hard to ensure that the new foreign relations law doesn’t discourage international partners from engaging with Australia.
East Asia Forum -
6
Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Act 2020 - Are you ready - Norton Rose Fulbright
Back in October 2020, we highlighted the Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory) Arrangements Bill 2020 and summarised how it would impact governments and other bodies such as public universities, including some of the practical considerations that might need to be considered in dealing with foreign government entities.
Nortonrosefulbright -
7
Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory) Arrangements Bill 2020 - Norton Rose Fulbright
The geopolitical landscape continues to shift rapidly across the globe, and this has been intensified by the ongoing economic, financial and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Individual countries are becoming much more focused on national security and self-sufficiency as global supply chains and regional diplomacy are re-evaluated on a macro and micro level.
Nortonrosefulbright -
8
Australian National Universities - Foreign Relations Bill Concerns - Universities Australia Official Response
Universities Australia
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.