Division
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
Senate, 2017-06-13. affirmative: ayes 34, noes 31.
Question
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
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.