Division
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-05-16.240.1) "*that part 2 of schedule 4 stand as printed*". In other words, they voted to keep that part as it is. This motion was introduced in response to an amendment that: > *(1) Schedule 4, Part 2, page 55 (lines 1 to 18), to be opposed.* ### What is part 2 of schedule 4? According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2324a/24bd34): > *Part 2 of Schedule 4 of the Bill repeals section 213A of the Native Title Act 1993. This section, ‘Assistance from Attorney General’, provides the statutory basis for the Native Title Respondents Scheme (NTRS) (also referred to as the Native Title Respondents Funding Scheme) and the associated Native Title Officer Funding Scheme (NTOFS) (‘the schemes’). Repealing this section (and the accompanying repeal of subsection94P, dealing with reports about breaches of the requirement to act in good faith by recipients of NTRS funds) has the effect of abolishing the schemes. [...]* > > *Abolishing the schemes was an election commitment by the ALP, and has been ALP policy for some time, having previously been a 2019 election commitment. After the 2022 election, their abolition was announced in the October 2022 budget as a budget saving (Budget October 2022–23 - Budget Paper 2, p. 48). The projected saving is $6.4 million over 4 years ($1.6 million/year) and $1.8 million a year ongoing.* > > *As rationale for abolition, the Attorney-General’s Second Reading Speech states: ‘Many significant questions of native title law have now been settled and the government considers that many current native title respondents, which are generally commercially viable or sound entities, would have the capacity to deal with native title matters as part of their ordinary business costs.’ As discussed below, this essentially repeats previous rationales for the scheme’s restriction by both Coalition and ALP governme
Senate, 2024-05-16. affirmative: ayes 32, noes 24.
Question
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-05-16.240.1) "*that part 2 of schedule 4 stand as printed*". In other words, they voted to keep that part as it is. This motion was introduced in response to an amendment that: > *(1) Schedule 4, Part 2, page 55 (lines 1 to 18), to be opposed.* ### What is part 2 of schedule 4? According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2324a/24bd34): > *Part 2 of Schedule 4 of the Bill repeals section 213A of the Native Title Act 1993. This section, ‘Assistance from Attorney General’, provides the statutory basis for the Native Title Respondents Scheme (NTRS) (also referred to as the Native Title Respondents Funding Scheme) and the associated Native Title Officer Funding Scheme (NTOFS) (‘the schemes’). Repealing this section (and the accompanying repeal of subsection94P, dealing with reports about breaches of the requirement to act in good faith by recipients of NTRS funds) has the effect of abolishing the schemes. [...]* > > *Abolishing the schemes was an election commitment by the ALP, and has been ALP policy for some time, having previously been a 2019 election commitment. After the 2022 election, their abolition was announced in the October 2022 budget as a budget saving (Budget October 2022–23 - Budget Paper 2, p. 48). The projected saving is $6.4 million over 4 years ($1.6 million/year) and $1.8 million a year ongoing.* > > *As rationale for abolition, the Attorney-General’s Second Reading Speech states: ‘Many significant questions of native title law have now been settled and the government considers that many current native title respondents, which are generally commercially viable or sound entities, would have the capacity to deal with native title matters as part of their ordinary business costs.’ As discussed below, this essentially repeats previous rationales for the scheme’s restriction by both Coalition and ALP governme
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.