Photo of Chris Ketter

Chris Ketter voted very strongly against requiring every native title claimant to sign land use agreements

How Chris Ketter voted compared to someone who believes that all native title claimants need to sign an Indigenous Land Use Agreement before the Agreement can be registered by the Native Title Registrar (agreements like this let, for example, mining companies mine in an area covered by native title)

Division Chris Ketter Supporters vote Division outcome

13th Jun 2017, 7:26 PM – Senate Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea

Show detail

The majority voted to agree with the bill's main idea, which means they can now discuss it in more detail. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a second time.

What is the bill's main idea?

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.

 Yes No (strong) Passed by a large majority

How "voted very strongly against" is worked out

The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes get 50 points, less important votes get 10 points, and less important votes for which the MP was absent get 2 points. In important votes the MP gets awarded the full 50 points for voting the same as the policy, 0 points for voting against the policy, and 25 points for not voting. In less important votes, the MP gets 10 points for voting with the policy, 0 points for voting against, and 1 (out of 2) if absent.

Then, the number gets converted to a simple english language phrase based on the range of values it's within.

No of votes Points Out of
Most important votes (50 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 1 0 50
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 50

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Senators are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.

Agreement score = MP's points / total points = 0 / 50 = 0.0%.

And then