← Basic divisions list

These divisions relate to the policy “for increasing Aboriginal land rights”. Compare how a supporter of the policy would have voted to the division outcome.

21st Mar 2018, 3:58 PM – Senate Motions - Queensland: Native Title - Adani Indigenous Land Use Agreement - Division No. 5

Supporters vote “Yes”

Party Yes No
Australian Conservatives (0.0% turnout)
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 9
Australian Labor Party (60% turnout) 15
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Derryn Hinch's Justice Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (0.0% turnout)
Independent (67% turnout) 2
Liberal Democratic Party (100% turnout) 1
Liberal National Party (100% turnout) 2
Liberal Party (57% turnout) 13
National Party (67% turnout) 2
Nick Xenophon Team (100% turnout) 2
Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party (0.0% turnout)
President (100% turnout) 1
Totals (64% turnout) 9 40

The majority voted against this motion, which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate calls on the Queensland Government to publicly rule out extinguishing the native title of the Wangan and Jagalingou people before investigating the circumstances in which the Adani Indigenous Land Use Agreement was obtained without clear and unambiguous Traditional Owner consent, and before the current Federal Court case examining its validity and any appeals are exhausted.

13th Jun 2017, 7:26 PM – Senate Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea - Division No. 6

Supporters vote “No (strong)”

Party Yes No
Australian Conservatives (100% turnout) 1
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 9
Australian Labor Party (76% turnout) 19
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Derryn Hinch's Justice Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 2
Liberal Democratic Party (100% turnout) 1
Liberal National Party (100% turnout) 2
Liberal Party (71% turnout) 15
National Party (50% turnout) 2
Nick Xenophon Team (100% turnout) 3
Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party (100% turnout) 4
President (100% turnout) 1
Totals (82% turnout) 53 9

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.

16th Feb 2017, 1:02 PM – Representatives Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 - Third Reading - Pass the bill - Division No. 6

Supporters vote “No (strong)”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 1
Australian Labor Party (94% turnout) 65
Deputy Speaker (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 2
Katter's Australian Party (0.0% turnout)
Liberal National Party (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (95% turnout) 56
National Party (100% turnout) 15
Nick Xenophon Team (100% turnout) 1
Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Totals (94% turnout) 76 66

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.

3rd May 2016, 3:57 PM – Senate Motions - Budget - Radioactive Waste - Division No. 2

Supporters vote “Yes”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (90% turnout) 9
Australian Labor Party (75% turnout) 18
Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party (0.0% turnout)
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (100% turnout) 1
Family First Party (0.0% turnout)
Independent (75% turnout) 3
Liberal Democratic Party (0.0% turnout)
Liberal National Party (100% turnout) 2
Liberal Party (84% turnout) 21
National Party (75% turnout) 3
Palmer United Party (100% turnout) 1
President (100% turnout) 1
Totals (79% turnout) 12 48

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam that was against the nomination of Barndioota site in the Flinders Ranges for the National Radioactive Waste project.

Read more about the nomination in ABC News.

Wording of the motion

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 27 November 2015 the Adnyamathanha traditional owners released a statement outlining their opposition to the nomination of Barndioota station to host a National Radioactive Waste facility with the statement detailing environmental conditions in the area, including flooding and yarta ngurra-ngurrandha (earthquakes and tremors), the importance of ground water and many mound springs close to the proposed site,

(ii) on 29 April 2016 press releases were issued from three different organisations that represent the Adnyamathanha traditional owners detailing their opposition to the nomination of Barndioota station,

(iii) the area is of cultural significance to Adnyamathanha,

(iv) Yappala was declared an Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) by the Federal Government in 2014,

(v) there is extensive archaeological evidence of occupation in the surrounding area, and

(vi) there has been a lack of consultation with Adnyamathanha; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) acknowledge the opposition from the Adnyamathanha traditional owners, and

(ii) respect previous commitments on non-imposition and the importance of community consent, and remove the Barndioota site as a nominated site.

20th Mar 2014, 12:20 PM – Senate Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Delegation) Regulation 2013 - Regulations and Determinations - Disallow the Regulation - Division No. 1

Supporters vote “Yes”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (89% turnout) 8
Australian Labor Party (80% turnout) 24
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Democratic Labor Party (0.0% turnout)
Deputy President (0.0% turnout)
Independent (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (81% turnout) 22
National Party (80% turnout) 4
President (100% turnout) 1
Totals (80% turnout) 33 28

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Labor Senator Claire Moore. The motion was:

"That the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Delegation) Regulation 2013, as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2013 No. 272 and made under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, be disallowed [F2013L02122]."

This type of motion is a motion to disallow. Because the majority voted in favour of this motion, it was successful and the Regulation was disallowed.

Senator Moore explained that she brought this motion because she believes that when developing regulations related to Aboriginal land, two key points are always required:

  • effective consultation and
  • transparency, accountability and consistency in any kind of action that is taken.

Read Senator Moore's full explanation and the related debate and further debate, including Senator Moore's summing up speech.

14th Sep 2009, 6:19 PM – Senate Native Title Amendment Bill 2009 - In Committee - Proof of continuity - Division No. 2

Supporters vote “Yes”

Party Yes No
Australian Greens (100% turnout) 5
Australian Labor Party (68% turnout) 21
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy President (100% turnout) 1
Family First Party (100% turnout) 1
Independent (100% turnout) 1
Liberal Party (40% turnout) 12
National Party (80% turnout) 4
President (0.0% turnout)
Totals (61% turnout) 5 41

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Greens Senator Rachel Siewert, which means that it was rejected. The amendment related to the issue of proving continuity (51.8 KB).

Senator Siewert explained that her amendment would have "reverse[d] the onus of proof so that native title holders do not have to prove continuity." Under this amendment "[t]here is a presumption of continuity ... [and] the state government and those opposing a claim have to prove otherwise." You can read Senator Siewert's whole explanation of the amendment and the associated debate here.

Background to the bill

The bill amends the _ Native Title Act 1993_ to:

  • enable the Federal Court to determine whether the court, the National Native Title Tribunal, or another individual/body should mediate native title claims;
  • specify the manner in which mediations are conducted;
  • change powers of the court in relation to agreed statements of fact and consent orders;
  • enable native title proceedings to rely on new evidence rules;
  • vary the operation of representative bodies, including their recognition and removal of transitional arrangements; and
  • make minor and technical amendments.

Read more about native title in Australia here.

17th Aug 2006, 1:52 PM – Representatives Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 - Consideration of Senate Message - Intertidal claims - Division No. 6

Supporters vote “Yes”

Party Yes No
Australian Labor Party (92% turnout) 54
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy Speaker (100% turnout) 1
Independent (75% turnout) 2 1
Liberal Party (90% turnout) 66
National Party (91% turnout) 10
Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Totals (90% turnout) 56 79

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Labor MP Warren Snowdon, which means that it was unsuccessful.

Mr Snowdon explained that his motion related to intertidal claims and would ensure procedural fairness for people affected by certain Senate amendments.(Read Mr Snowdon's full explanation of his motion and the related debate here. Read more about the Senate amendments related to intertidal claims on ABC News. )

The motion was put while the House of Representatives considered a series of amendments proposed by the Senate. If the House agrees with the Senate's amendments then the bill can be passed and become law.

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced to amend the _ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005_ and the _ Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976_ to:(Read more about the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 here. )

  • increase access to Aboriginal land for development, especially exploration and mining;
  • facilitate the leasing of Aboriginal land and the mortgaging of leases;
  • provide for a tenure system for townships on Aboriginal land that will allow individuals to have property rights;
  • devolve decision-making powers to regional Aboriginal communities;
  • clarify provisions for the establishment of new Land Councils;
  • increase accountability of Land Councils and incorporated bodies which receive payments for the use of Aboriginal land and provide for funding on the basis of workloads; and
  • dispose of land claims which cannot be heard or finalised or which are clearly inappropriate to grant.(Read more about the bill here. More information is available in the bills digest.)

According to the bill's explanatory memorandum, this bill implements reforms drawn from three reviews of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 conducted over the last nine years.

References

19th Jun 2006, 8:50 PM – Representatives Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 - Second Reading - Read a second time - Division No. 4

Supporters vote “No”

Party Yes No
Australian Labor Party (90% turnout) 53
Country Liberal Party (100% turnout) 1
Deputy Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Independent (75% turnout) 2 1
Liberal Party (84% turnout) 61
National Party (91% turnout) 10
Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Totals (85% turnout) 74 54

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a second time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through before becoming law here. ) This means that the majority agreed with the main idea of the bill and that the members can now discuss it in more detail.

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced to amend the _ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005_ and the _ Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976_ to:(Read more about the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 here. )

  • increase access to Aboriginal land for development, especially exploration and mining;
  • facilitate the leasing of Aboriginal land and the mortgaging of leases;
  • provide for a tenure system for townships on Aboriginal land that will allow individuals to have property rights;
  • devolve decision-making powers to regional Aboriginal communities;
  • clarify provisions for the establishment of new Land Councils;
  • increase accountability of Land Councils and incorporated bodies which receive payments for the use of Aboriginal land and provide for funding on the basis of workloads; and
  • dispose of land claims which cannot be heard or finalised or which are clearly inappropriate to grant.(Read more about the bill here. More information is available in the bills digest.)

According to the bill's explanatory memorandum, this bill implements reforms drawn from three reviews of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 conducted over the last nine years.

References

19th Jun 2006, 8:39 PM – Representatives Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 - Second Reading - Keep the words unchanged - Division No. 3

Supporters vote “Yes”

Party Yes No
Australian Labor Party (86% turnout) 51
Country Liberal Party (0.0% turnout)
Deputy Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Independent (75% turnout) 2 1
Liberal Party (85% turnout) 62
National Party (91% turnout) 10
Speaker (0.0% turnout)
Totals (84% turnout) 74 52

The majority voted in favour of a motion "That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Snowdon’s amendment) stand part of the question." This means that the words that Labor MP Warren Snowdon had wanted to omit will remain unchanged and so Mr Snowdon's amendment was unsuccessful.

Mr Snowdon's amendment would have amended the original motion "That the bill be read a second time" with the following:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst welcoming many measures contained in the bill including the mining and exploration provisions, the House is of the opinion that some other provisions of this bill: (1) undermine the integrity of the Principal Act by eroding the rights of traditional owners and the independence of land councils; (2) are a recipe for uncertainty for development on Aboriginal land; (3) should be withdrawn and redrafted to provide a more balanced approach that ensures: (a) the informed consent of traditional owners to major changes; (b) that traditional owners as land owners are not unfairly constrained in optimising their financial and other benefits under the 99 year lease; (c) the better promotion and facilitation of economic development on Aboriginal land including home ownership opportunities for Aboriginal people; (d) the protection of traditional owners’ rights to control access and development on their own land; and (e) the maintenance of the independence and viability of land councils to defend and pursue the interests of traditional owners and other Aboriginal people living on Aboriginal land.”

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced to amend the _ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005_ and the _ Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976_ to:(Read more about the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 here. )

  • increase access to Aboriginal land for development, especially exploration and mining;
  • facilitate the leasing of Aboriginal land and the mortgaging of leases;
  • provide for a tenure system for townships on Aboriginal land that will allow individuals to have property rights;
  • devolve decision-making powers to regional Aboriginal communities;
  • clarify provisions for the establishment of new Land Councils;
  • increase accountability of Land Councils and incorporated bodies which receive payments for the use of Aboriginal land and provide for funding on the basis of workloads; and
  • dispose of land claims which cannot be heard or finalised or which are clearly inappropriate to grant.(Read more about the bill here. More information is available in the bills digest.)

According to the bill's explanatory memorandum, this bill implements reforms drawn from three reviews of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 conducted over the last nine years.

References