How Jim Chalmers voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should increase Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land rights by, for example, increasing their legal recognition and protection

Division Jim Chalmers Supporters vote Division outcome

16th Feb 2017, 1:02 PM – Representatives Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

Show detail

The majority supported passing the bill in the House of Representatives. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a third time.

The bill will now go to the Senate for their consideration.

What does the bill do?

The bill is a response to McGlade v Native Title Registrar & Ors [2017] FCAFC 10, which considers whether an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) can be registered with the Native Title Registrar even if not all named parties have signed. An Indigenous Land Use Agreement is a voluntary agreement that native title groups can negotiate with other parties in relation to the use of land and waters.

In that case, the Federal Court ruled that all parties must sign, which meant the Noongar Native Title agreement could not be registered (read more in ABC News).

This happened on 2 February, and the Government immediately moved to protect existing agreements with this bill. According to the explanatory memorandum, its purpose is to:

  • confirm the legal status and enforceability of agreements which have been registered by the Native Title Registrar on the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements without the signature of all members of a registered native title claimant (RNTC)
  • enable registration of agreements which have been made but have not yet been registered on the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements, and
  • ensure that in the future, area ILUAs can be registered without requiring every member of the RNTC to be a party to the agreement.

More detail and background information is available in the bills digest.

absent No (strong) Passed by a small majority

How "never voted" is worked out

Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Jim Chalmers was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other than that they have "never voted" on this policy.