Bill
Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017
passed, as at 2017-06-22. Attorney-General portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Attorney-General
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2017-02-15
- second reading — 2017-02-15
- second reading — 2017-02-16
- second reading — 2017-02-16
- third reading — 2017-02-16
- introduced — 2017-02-16
- second reading — 2017-02-16
- second reading — 2017-05-10
- second reading — 2017-05-11
- second reading — 2017-06-13
- second reading — 2017-06-13
- committee — 2017-06-14
- third reading — 2017-06-14
- other — 2017-06-14
- passed — 2017-06-14
- royal assent — 2017-06-22
Divisions
- Motions — Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 - That the member be no longer heard — 2017-02-16, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 73, noes 67
- Motions — Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 - That the member be no longer heard — 2017-02-16, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 73, noes 68
- Motions — Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 - That the motion be put — 2017-02-16, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 74, noes 69
- Motions - Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 - Suspend rules to let vote happen — 2017-02-16, House of Representatives: negative, ayes 69, noes 74
- Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 - Third Reading - Speed things along — 2017-02-16, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 75, noes 68
- Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 - Third Reading - Pass the bill — 2017-02-16, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 77, noes 66
- The majority voted in favour of an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-05-11.167.1) introduced by Labor Party Senator [Malarndirri McCarthy](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nt/malarndirri_mccarthy) (NT), which means the amendment was successful. ### What was the amendment? The amendment didn't change the bill at all, it just added words to the motion of [whether to agree with the bill's main idea](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2017-06-13/6). In parliamentary jargon, it added the words below to the motion that the bill be [read for a second time](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). ### Wording of the amendment > *At the end of the motion [to read the bill for a second time], add:* > *but the Senate expresses its disappointment with the regrettable way in which the Government has managed the process for consultation on the changes contained in the Bill, which has been a source of unnecessary angst, confusion and delay."* ### What is this bill all about? The bill is [a response](http://www.indigenous.gov.au/news-and-media/announcements/nttt-government-introduces-legislation-address-mcglade-decision) to [McGlade v Native Title Registrar & Ors [2017] FCAFC 10](http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2017/10.html?query=), 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](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-02/billon-dollar-noongar-native-title-deal-rejected-by-court/8235138)). This happened on 2 February, and the Government immediately moved to pro — 2017-06-13, Senate: affirmative, ayes 34, noes 31
- Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea — 2017-06-13, Senate: affirmative, ayes 53, noes 9
- George Brandis I table three supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill and seek leave to move government amendments (1), (2) and (4) on sheet ZA429 together. Leave granted. The government opposes schedule 1 in the following terms: (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 23 and 24), to be opposed. (2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 7 and 8), to be opposed. (4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (line 28) to page 7 (line 11), to be opposed. I thank the members of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and, in particular, the chairman of the committee, the distinguished father of the Senate, Senator Macdonald, for their work in reviewing the bill. The committee's majority report contained two recommendations, the key recommendation being that the bill be passed. This reflects the significant uncertainty that the native title sector was faced with following the decision in McGlade, something I mentioned in closing the second reading debate last night. The government was urged by Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders alike to address the ambiguous situation faced by the parties to an estimated 126 ILUAs following that decision. The committee's other recommendation is for the removal of two separate measures from the bill at this time, with the recommendation that they be considered in a later bill, involving government proposals arising from the 2015 Australian Law Reform Commission report _Connection to country: review of the Native Title Act_. The committee recommended that the proposed amendments to sections 251A and 251B of the act be removed. Those amendments, items 4 and 6 of schedule 1, would have permitted claim groups to authorise an ILUA and to make applications for compensation or the determination of native title by a traditional process or a method agreed upon by the group. These changes implemented recommendations 10-1 and 10-2 of the ALRC report. The Senate committee has taken the — 2017-06-14, Senate: negative, ayes 9, noes 38
- George Brandis I move: That this bill be now read a third time. — 2017-06-14, Senate: affirmative, ayes 46, noes 9
Plain-language summary
Written by a model from the explanatory memorandum; not the record, as at 2017-02-15.
This bill changes the Native Title Act 1993 to settle legal doubts about certain Indigenous land use agreements raised by a recent court ruling.
It would validate agreements already registered or lodged by a specific date that lack all required signatures, and set new rules for who must sign future agreements unless the traditional owners decide otherwise.
The changes apply to agreements registered or lodged for registration on or before 2 February 2017.
- It validates existing area agreements that were registered before the court decision but did not have all signatures.
- It allows registration of agreements that were lodged before the court decision but lack all signatures.
- It clarifies who must be a party to future area agreements unless the claim group chooses otherwise.
Native title holders, parties to area Indigenous Land Use Agreements, and the native title sector.
Sources
em
em supp
em supp
em supp
billhome
frl act