Skip to content
Political Tracker

16 May 2024 · 7:15 PM · Division 38

Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023

Second Reading - Native Title Respondents Scheme
Official title
Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 - Second Reading - Native Title Respondents Scheme

Ayes in the majority

This says only which side won the vote, because what Aye and No meant here depends on the exact question put in the chamber.

Aye
32
No
24
Not recorded voting
19

“Not recorded voting” is everyone eligible who isn't recorded as Aye or No, for example absent, paired, or presiding.

What was decided

The majority voted in favour of a motion "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:

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 governments.

Read more in the bills digest.

Text of part 2 of schedule 4

Part 2 — Assistance from Attorney-General

Native Title Act 1993

8 Subsection 94P(1) (table item 3)

Repeal the item.

9 Section 213A

Repeal the section.

10 Application of amendments

(1) Despite the repeal of item 3 of the table in subsection 94P(1) of the Native Title Act 1993 by this Part, that item continues to apply, in relation to parties provided with funds before the commencement of this Part, as if that repeal had not happened.

(2) If:

(a) a person has, before the commencement of this Part, made an application for the provision of assistance under section 213A of the Native Title Act 1993 3; and

(b) the Attorney-General has not, before that time, made a decision on the application;

the application is taken never to have been made.

Summary written by They Vote For You contributors. Read it with the debate

Votes by party

Both bars use the same scale: number of members.
Aye
32
No
24
Votes by party as a table
PartyAyeNo
Australian Labor Party190
Liberal Party018
Australian Greens100
National Party03
Australia's Voice10
Country Liberal Party01
Independent10
Liberal National Party01
Senate President10
United Australia Party01

How each member voted

Aye · 32

No · 24

Spotted a mistake? Report a correction.