All changes made to the description and title of this
division.
View division
|
Edit description
| Change |
Division |
|
senate vote 2020-12-03#11
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-07-29 11:06:21
|
Title
Bills — Native Title Amendment (Infrastructure and Public Facilities) Bill 2020; Second Reading- Native Title Amendment (Infrastructure and Public Facilities) Bill 2020 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea
Description
<p class="speaker">Lidia Thorpe</p><p>I continue my contribution to the debate on the Native Title Amendment (Infrastructure and Public Facilities) Bill 2020. If only they listened to our mobs in the way that they say they do, because then we wouldn't have to go to court to fight tooth and nail to protect our heritage, just as we have been doing on Djab Wurrung country. Today Justice Forbes handed down her decision on the injunction application by Djab Wurrung people to have their sacred birthing trees protected. This is a welcome decision for the Djab Wurrung mob. We shouldn't have to go to court to fight for country over and over again. If only governments would listen to our people and work with us, we wouldn't have to be in the Supreme Court arguing. If this country valued its First Peoples then we wouldn't have to be in court.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-12-03.90.1) to read the bill for a [second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/). In other words, they voted to agree with the bill's main idea. This means they can now discuss it in greater detail.
- ### What is the bill's main idea?
- According to the [bill homepage](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6599), the bill:
- > *Amends the Native Title Act 1993 to extend the operation of Subdivision JA, which requires native title holders and claimants to be notified about proposed public works and provides them with an opportunity to be consulted about the impact of the proposed future act on their native title rights and interests, for a further 10 years.*
<p>This is why we will vote against this bill today. The Greens know that this bill doesn't extinguish native title, but it does extinguish our people's sovereignty. The Greens know that this bill doesn't extinguish native title and this breach of the right of our people to get free, prior and informed consent will not be supported by the Greens. The minister has not made a strong enough case for extending this legislation for another 10 years, when this government has been in government for seven of those years. As our amendments to this bill show, we are willing to give them one more year to come back and properly make the case to us as to why this section is needed. If this section weren't in the Native Title Act, it would rightly be condemned for being racist, because the government is trying to acquire interest over the property on Aboriginal territory without due process of payment.</p><p>The government's bill leaves native title owners with infrastructure built on their land, which is allegedly for their benefit, but they have no control over it. This is shameful and we will not support it. Our amendment would give the government one year. If they cannot justify to the parliament in one year why they need this change to section 24JAA then that section must lapse.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>I thank senators for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate.</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p><p>The question is that the bill be read a second time.</p> -
-
|