Division Description Changes — Native Title Amendment Bill 2009 — In Committee — 14th Sep 2009

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
senate vote 2009-09-14#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-10-17 09:02:59	Title Description The majority voted against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-14.69.1) introduced by Greens Senator [Rachel Siewert](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Rachel_Siewert&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that it was rejected. The amendment was: ~~_(1) Schedule 6, page 52 (after line 5), after item 12, insert:_~~ ~~_12A After section 61_~~ ~~_Insert:_~~ ~~_61AA Presumptions relating to applications_~~ _(1) This section applies to an application for a native title determination brought under section 61 of the Act where the following circumstances exist:_(Read more about native title in Australia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia). ) _(a) the native title claim group defined in the application applies for a determination of native title rights and interests where the rights and interests are found to be possessed under laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group;_ ~~_(b) members of the native title claim group reasonably believe the laws and customs so acknowledged to be traditional;_~~ ~~_(c) the members of the native title claim group, by their laws and customs have a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application;_~~ _(d) the members of the native title claim group reasonably believe that persons from whom one or more of them was descended, acknowledged and observed traditional laws and customs at sovereignty by which those persons had a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application._ ~~_(2) Where this section applies to an application it shall be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary:_~~ _(a) that the laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group are traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed at [sovereignty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty);_ ~~_(b) that the native title claim group has a connection with the land or waters by those traditional laws and customs;_~~ _(c) if the native title rights and interests asserted are capable of recognition by the common law then the facts necessary for the recognition of those rights and interests by the common law are established._ Senator Siewert explained that "reverses the onus of proof so that native title holders do not have to prove continuity. There is a presumption of continuity. In fact, the state government and those opposing a claim have to prove otherwise."(Read more about native title in Australia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia). ) ~~_Background to the bill_~~ ~~The bill amends the _ [Native Title Act 1993](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Title_Act_1993)_ to:~~ - enable the [Federal Court](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Australia) to determine whether the court, the [National Native Title Tribunal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Senator Siewert's explanation of the amendment and the associated debate [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-14.68.1). Read more about proof of continuity in this [issue paper](http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/ntru/publications/issues/ip97n18.pdf) (51.8 KB). ) ~~References~~ The majority voted against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-14.69.1) introduced by Greens Senator [Rachel Siewert](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Rachel_Siewert&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that it was rejected. The amendment related to the issue of [proving continuity](http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/ntru/publications/issues/ip97n18.pdf) (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](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-14.68.1). _Background to the bill_ The bill amends the _ [Native Title Act 1993](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Title_Act_1993)_ to: - enable the [Federal Court](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Australia) to determine whether the court, the [National Native Title Tribunal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia).
senate vote 2009-09-14#2 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:20:03	Title Description The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-14.69.1 amendment] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Rachel_Siewert&mpc=Senate&house=senate Rachel Siewert], which means that it was rejected. The amendment was: ~~''(1) Schedule 6, page 52 (after line 5), after item 12, insert:''~~ ~~''12A After section 61''~~ ~~''Insert:''~~ ~~''61AA Presumptions relating to applications''~~ ''(1) This section applies to an application for a native title determination brought under section 61 of the Act where the following circumstances exist:''(Read more about native title in Australia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia here]. ) ''(a) the native title claim group defined in the application applies for a determination of native title rights and interests where the rights and interests are found to be possessed under laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group;'' ~~''(b) members of the native title claim group reasonably believe the laws and customs so acknowledged to be traditional;''~~ ~~''(c) the members of the native title claim group, by their laws and customs have a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application;''~~ ''(d) the members of the native title claim group reasonably believe that persons from whom one or more of them was descended, acknowledged and observed traditional laws and customs at sovereignty by which those persons had a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application.'' ~~''(2) Where this section applies to an application it shall be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary:''~~ ''(a) that the laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group are traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty sovereignty];'' ~~''(b) that the native title claim group has a connection with the land or waters by those traditional laws and customs;''~~ ''(c) if the native title rights and interests asserted are capable of recognition by the common law then the facts necessary for the recognition of those rights and interests by the common law are established.'' Senator Siewert explained that "reverses the onus of proof so that native title holders do not have to prove continuity. There is a presumption of continuity. In fact, the state government and those opposing a claim have to prove otherwise."(Read more about native title in Australia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia here]. ) ~~''Background to the bill''~~ ~~The bill amends the ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Title_Act_1993 Native Title Act 1993]'' to:~~ * enable the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Australia Federal Court] to determine whether the court, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Native_Title_Tribunal 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 Senator Siewert's explanation of the amendment and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-14.68.1 here]. Read more about proof of continuity in this [http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/ntru/publications/issues/ip97n18.pdf issue paper] (51.8 KB). ) ~~References~~ The majority voted against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-14.69.1) introduced by Greens Senator [Rachel Siewert](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Rachel_Siewert&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that it was rejected. The amendment was: _(1) Schedule 6, page 52 (after line 5), after item 12, insert:_ _12A After section 61_ _Insert:_ _61AA Presumptions relating to applications_ _(1) This section applies to an application for a native title determination brought under section 61 of the Act where the following circumstances exist:_(Read more about native title in Australia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia). ) _(a) the native title claim group defined in the application applies for a determination of native title rights and interests where the rights and interests are found to be possessed under laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group;_ _(b) members of the native title claim group reasonably believe the laws and customs so acknowledged to be traditional;_ _(c) the members of the native title claim group, by their laws and customs have a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application;_ _(d) the members of the native title claim group reasonably believe that persons from whom one or more of them was descended, acknowledged and observed traditional laws and customs at sovereignty by which those persons had a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application._ _(2) Where this section applies to an application it shall be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary:_ _(a) that the laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group are traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed at [sovereignty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty);_ _(b) that the native title claim group has a connection with the land or waters by those traditional laws and customs;_ _(c) if the native title rights and interests asserted are capable of recognition by the common law then the facts necessary for the recognition of those rights and interests by the common law are established._ Senator Siewert explained that "reverses the onus of proof so that native title holders do not have to prove continuity. There is a presumption of continuity. In fact, the state government and those opposing a claim have to prove otherwise."(Read more about native title in Australia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia). ) _Background to the bill_ The bill amends the _ [Native Title Act 1993](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Title_Act_1993)_ to: - enable the [Federal Court](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Australia) to determine whether the court, the [National Native Title Tribunal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Senator Siewert's explanation of the amendment and the associated debate [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-14.68.1). Read more about proof of continuity in this [issue paper](http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/ntru/publications/issues/ip97n18.pdf) (51.8 KB). ) References
senate vote 2009-09-14#2 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:37	Title Description The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-14.69.1 amendment] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Rachel_Siewert&mpc=Senate&house=senate Rachel Siewert], which means that it was rejected. The amendment was: ''(1) Schedule 6, page 52 (after line 5), after item 12, insert:'' ''12A After section 61'' ''Insert:'' ''61AA Presumptions relating to applications'' ''(1) This section applies to an application for a native title determination brought under section 61 of the Act where the following circumstances exist:''[1] ''(1) This section applies to an application for a native title determination brought under section 61 of the Act where the following circumstances exist:''(Read more about native title in Australia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia here]. ) ''(a) the native title claim group defined in the application applies for a determination of native title rights and interests where the rights and interests are found to be possessed under laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group;'' ''(b) members of the native title claim group reasonably believe the laws and customs so acknowledged to be traditional;'' ''(c) the members of the native title claim group, by their laws and customs have a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application;'' ''(d) the members of the native title claim group reasonably believe that persons from whom one or more of them was descended, acknowledged and observed traditional laws and customs at sovereignty by which those persons had a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application.'' ''(2) Where this section applies to an application it shall be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary:'' ''(a) that the laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group are traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty sovereignty];'' ''(b) that the native title claim group has a connection with the land or waters by those traditional laws and customs;'' ''(c) if the native title rights and interests asserted are capable of recognition by the common law then the facts necessary for the recognition of those rights and interests by the common law are established.'' Senator Siewert explained that "reverses the onus of proof so that native title holders do not have to prove continuity. There is a presumption of continuity. In fact, the state government and those opposing a claim have to prove otherwise."[1] Senator Siewert explained that "reverses the onus of proof so that native title holders do not have to prove continuity. There is a presumption of continuity. In fact, the state government and those opposing a claim have to prove otherwise."(Read more about native title in Australia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia here]. ) ''Background to the bill'' The bill amends the ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Title_Act_1993 Native Title Act 1993]'' to: * enable the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Australia Federal Court] to determine whether the court, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Native_Title_Tribunal 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.[2] * make minor and technical amendments.(Read Senator Siewert's explanation of the amendment and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-14.68.1 here]. Read more about proof of continuity in this [http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/ntru/publications/issues/ip97n18.pdf issue paper] (51.8 KB). ) References * [1] Read more about native title in Australia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia here]. * [2] Read Senator Siewert's explanation of the amendment and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-14.68.1 here]. Read more about proof of continuity in this [http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/ntru/publications/issues/ip97n18.pdf issue paper] (51.8 KB). * [3] Read more about the bill [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4093 here]. More background information is available in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0809/09bd124 bills digest].
senate vote 2009-09-14#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-05-16 12:16:07	Title Description The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-14.69.1 amendment] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Rachel_Siewert&mpc=Senate&house=senate Rachel Siewert], which means that it was rejected. The amendment was: ''(1) Schedule 6, page 52 (after line 5), after item 12, insert:'' ''12A After section 61'' ''Insert:'' ''61AA Presumptions relating to applications'' ''(1) This section applies to an application for a native title determination brought under section 61 of the Act where the following circumstances exist:''[1] ''(a) the native title claim group defined in the application applies for a determination of native title rights and interests where the rights and interests are found to be possessed under laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group;'' ''(b) members of the native title claim group reasonably believe the laws and customs so acknowledged to be traditional;'' ''(c) the members of the native title claim group, by their laws and customs have a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application;'' ''(d) the members of the native title claim group reasonably believe that persons from whom one or more of them was descended, acknowledged and observed traditional laws and customs at sovereignty by which those persons had a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application.'' ''(2) Where this section applies to an application it shall be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary:'' ''(a) that the laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group are traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty sovereignty];'' ''(b) that the native title claim group has a connection with the land or waters by those traditional laws and customs;'' ''(c) if the native title rights and interests asserted are capable of recognition by the common law then the facts necessary for the recognition of those rights and interests by the common law are established.'' Senator Siewert explained that "''reverses the onus of proof so that native title holders do not have to prove continuity. There is a presumption of continuity. In fact, the state government and those opposing a claim have to prove otherwise.''"[1] Senator Siewert explained that "reverses the onus of proof so that native title holders do not have to prove continuity. There is a presumption of continuity. In fact, the state government and those opposing a claim have to prove otherwise."[1] ''Background to the bill'' The bill amends the ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Title_Act_1993 Native Title Act 1993]'' to: * enable the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Australia Federal Court] to determine whether the court, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Native_Title_Tribunal 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.[2] References * [1] Read more about native title in Australia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia here]. * [2] Read Senator Siewert's explanation of the amendment and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-14.68.1 here]. Read more about proof of continuity in this [http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/ntru/publications/issues/ip97n18.pdf issue paper] (51.8 KB). * [3] Read more about the bill [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4093 here]. More background information is available in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0809/09bd124 bills digest]. * [3] Read more about the bill [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4093 here]. More background information is available in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0809/09bd124 bills digest].
senate vote 2009-09-14#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-05-16 12:14:15	Title ~~Native Title Amendment Bill 2009 — In Committee~~ Native Title Amendment Bill 2009 - In Committee - Proof of continuity Description ~~<p pwmotiontext="moved">That the amendment (<b>Senator Siewert’s</b>) be agreed to.</p>~~ The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-14.69.1 amendment] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Rachel_Siewert&mpc=Senate&house=senate Rachel Siewert], which means that it was rejected. The amendment was: ''(1) Schedule 6, page 52 (after line 5), after item 12, insert:'' ''12A After section 61'' ''Insert:'' ''61AA Presumptions relating to applications'' ''(1) This section applies to an application for a native title determination brought under section 61 of the Act where the following circumstances exist:''[1] ''(a) the native title claim group defined in the application applies for a determination of native title rights and interests where the rights and interests are found to be possessed under laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group;'' ''(b) members of the native title claim group reasonably believe the laws and customs so acknowledged to be traditional;'' ''(c) the members of the native title claim group, by their laws and customs have a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application;'' ''(d) the members of the native title claim group reasonably believe that persons from whom one or more of them was descended, acknowledged and observed traditional laws and customs at sovereignty by which those persons had a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application.'' ''(2) Where this section applies to an application it shall be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary:'' ''(a) that the laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group are traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty sovereignty];'' ''(b) that the native title claim group has a connection with the land or waters by those traditional laws and customs;'' ''(c) if the native title rights and interests asserted are capable of recognition by the common law then the facts necessary for the recognition of those rights and interests by the common law are established.'' Senator Siewert explained that "''reverses the onus of proof so that native title holders do not have to prove continuity. There is a presumption of continuity. In fact, the state government and those opposing a claim have to prove otherwise.''"[1] ''Background to the bill'' The bill amends the ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Title_Act_1993 Native Title Act 1993]'' to: * enable the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Australia Federal Court] to determine whether the court, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Native_Title_Tribunal 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.[2] References * [1] Read more about native title in Australia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia here]. * [2] Read Senator Siewert's explanation of the amendment and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-14.68.1 here]. Read more about proof of continuity in this [http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/ntru/publications/issues/ip97n18.pdf issue paper] (51.8 KB). * [3] Read more about the bill [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4093 here]. More background information is available in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0809/09bd124 bills digest].

Change

Division

senate vote 2009-09-14#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-10-17 09:02:59

Title

Description

The majority voted against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-14.69.1) introduced by Greens Senator [Rachel Siewert](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Rachel_Siewert&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that it was rejected. The amendment was:
~~_(1) Schedule 6, page 52 (after line 5), after item 12, insert:_~~
~~_12A After section 61_~~
~~_Insert:_~~
~~_61AA Presumptions relating to applications_~~
_(1) This section applies to an application for a native title determination brought under section 61 of the Act where the following circumstances exist:_(Read more about native title in Australia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia). )
_(a) the native title claim group defined in the application applies for a determination of native title rights and interests where the rights and interests are found to be possessed under laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group;_
~~_(b) members of the native title claim group reasonably believe the laws and customs so acknowledged to be traditional;_~~
~~_(c) the members of the native title claim group, by their laws and customs have a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application;_~~
_(d) the members of the native title claim group reasonably believe that persons from whom one or more of them was descended, acknowledged and observed traditional laws and customs at sovereignty by which those persons had a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application._
~~_(2) Where this section applies to an application it shall be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary:_~~
_(a) that the laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group are traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed at [sovereignty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty);_
~~_(b) that the native title claim group has a connection with the land or waters by those traditional laws and customs;_~~
_(c) if the native title rights and interests asserted are capable of recognition by the common law then the facts necessary for the recognition of those rights and interests by the common law are established._
Senator Siewert explained that "reverses the onus of proof so that native title holders do not have to prove continuity. There is a presumption of continuity. In fact, the state government and those opposing a claim have to prove otherwise."(Read more about native title in Australia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia). )
~~_Background to the bill_~~
~~The bill amends the _ [Native Title Act 1993](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Title_Act_1993)_ to:~~
- enable the [Federal Court](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Australia) to determine whether the court, the [National Native Title Tribunal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Senator Siewert's explanation of the amendment and the associated debate [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-14.68.1). Read more about proof of continuity in this [issue paper](http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/ntru/publications/issues/ip97n18.pdf) (51.8 KB).
)
~~References~~
The majority voted against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-14.69.1) introduced by Greens Senator [Rachel Siewert](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Rachel_Siewert&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that it was rejected. The amendment related to the issue of [proving continuity](http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/ntru/publications/issues/ip97n18.pdf) (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](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-14.68.1).
_Background to the bill_
The bill amends the _ [Native Title Act 1993](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Title_Act_1993)_ to:
- enable the [Federal Court](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Australia) to determine whether the court, the [National Native Title Tribunal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia).

senate vote 2009-09-14#2

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:20:03

Title

Description

The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-14.69.1 amendment] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Rachel_Siewert&mpc=Senate&house=senate Rachel Siewert], which means that it was rejected. The amendment was:
~~''(1) Schedule 6, page 52 (after line 5), after item 12, insert:''~~
~~''12A After section 61''~~
~~''Insert:''~~
~~''61AA Presumptions relating to applications''~~
''(1) This section applies to an application for a native title determination brought under section 61 of the Act where the following circumstances exist:''(Read more about native title in Australia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia here]. )
''(a) the native title claim group defined in the application applies for a determination of native title rights and interests where the rights and interests are found to be possessed under laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group;''
~~''(b) members of the native title claim group reasonably believe the laws and customs so acknowledged to be traditional;''~~
~~''(c) the members of the native title claim group, by their laws and customs have a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application;''~~
''(d) the members of the native title claim group reasonably believe that persons from whom one or more of them was descended, acknowledged and observed traditional laws and customs at sovereignty by which those persons had a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application.''
~~''(2) Where this section applies to an application it shall be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary:''~~
''(a) that the laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group are traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty sovereignty];''
~~''(b) that the native title claim group has a connection with the land or waters by those traditional laws and customs;''~~
''(c) if the native title rights and interests asserted are capable of recognition by the common law then the facts necessary for the recognition of those rights and interests by the common law are established.''
Senator Siewert explained that "reverses the onus of proof so that native title holders do not have to prove continuity. There is a presumption of continuity. In fact, the state government and those opposing a claim have to prove otherwise."(Read more about native title in Australia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia here]. )
~~''Background to the bill''~~
~~The bill amends the ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Title_Act_1993 Native Title Act 1993]'' to:~~
* enable the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Australia Federal Court] to determine whether the court, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Native_Title_Tribunal 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 Senator Siewert's explanation of the amendment and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-14.68.1 here]. Read more about proof of continuity in this [http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/ntru/publications/issues/ip97n18.pdf issue paper] (51.8 KB). )
~~References~~
The majority voted against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-14.69.1) introduced by Greens Senator [Rachel Siewert](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Rachel_Siewert&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that it was rejected. The amendment was:
_(1) Schedule 6, page 52 (after line 5), after item 12, insert:_
_12A After section 61_
_Insert:_
_61AA Presumptions relating to applications_
_(1) This section applies to an application for a native title determination brought under section 61 of the Act where the following circumstances exist:_(Read more about native title in Australia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia). )
_(a) the native title claim group defined in the application applies for a determination of native title rights and interests where the rights and interests are found to be possessed under laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group;_
_(b) members of the native title claim group reasonably believe the laws and customs so acknowledged to be traditional;_
_(c) the members of the native title claim group, by their laws and customs have a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application;_
_(d) the members of the native title claim group reasonably believe that persons from whom one or more of them was descended, acknowledged and observed traditional laws and customs at sovereignty by which those persons had a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application._
_(2) Where this section applies to an application it shall be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary:_
_(a) that the laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group are traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed at [sovereignty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty);_
_(b) that the native title claim group has a connection with the land or waters by those traditional laws and customs;_
_(c) if the native title rights and interests asserted are capable of recognition by the common law then the facts necessary for the recognition of those rights and interests by the common law are established._
Senator Siewert explained that "reverses the onus of proof so that native title holders do not have to prove continuity. There is a presumption of continuity. In fact, the state government and those opposing a claim have to prove otherwise."(Read more about native title in Australia [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia). )
_Background to the bill_
The bill amends the _ [Native Title Act 1993](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Title_Act_1993)_ to:
- enable the [Federal Court](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Australia) to determine whether the court, the [National Native Title Tribunal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Senator Siewert's explanation of the amendment and the associated debate [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-14.68.1). Read more about proof of continuity in this [issue paper](http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/ntru/publications/issues/ip97n18.pdf) (51.8 KB).
)
References

senate vote 2009-09-14#2

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:37

Title

Description

The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-14.69.1 amendment] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Rachel_Siewert&mpc=Senate&house=senate Rachel Siewert], which means that it was rejected. The amendment was:
''(1) Schedule 6, page 52 (after line 5), after item 12, insert:''
''12A After section 61''
''Insert:''
''61AA Presumptions relating to applications''
''(1) This section applies to an application for a native title determination brought under section 61 of the Act where the following circumstances exist:''[1]
''(1) This section applies to an application for a native title determination brought under section 61 of the Act where the following circumstances exist:''(Read more about native title in Australia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia here]. )
''(a) the native title claim group defined in the application applies for a determination of native title rights and interests where the rights and interests are found to be possessed under laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group;''
''(b) members of the native title claim group reasonably believe the laws and customs so acknowledged to be traditional;''
''(c) the members of the native title claim group, by their laws and customs have a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application;''
''(d) the members of the native title claim group reasonably believe that persons from whom one or more of them was descended, acknowledged and observed traditional laws and customs at sovereignty by which those persons had a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application.''
''(2) Where this section applies to an application it shall be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary:''
''(a) that the laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group are traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty sovereignty];''
''(b) that the native title claim group has a connection with the land or waters by those traditional laws and customs;''
''(c) if the native title rights and interests asserted are capable of recognition by the common law then the facts necessary for the recognition of those rights and interests by the common law are established.''
Senator Siewert explained that "reverses the onus of proof so that native title holders do not have to prove continuity. There is a presumption of continuity. In fact, the state government and those opposing a claim have to prove otherwise."[1]
Senator Siewert explained that "reverses the onus of proof so that native title holders do not have to prove continuity. There is a presumption of continuity. In fact, the state government and those opposing a claim have to prove otherwise."(Read more about native title in Australia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia here]. )
''Background to the bill''
The bill amends the ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Title_Act_1993 Native Title Act 1993]'' to:
* enable the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Australia Federal Court] to determine whether the court, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Native_Title_Tribunal 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.[2]
* make minor and technical amendments.(Read Senator Siewert's explanation of the amendment and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-14.68.1 here]. Read more about proof of continuity in this [http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/ntru/publications/issues/ip97n18.pdf issue paper] (51.8 KB). )
References
* [1] Read more about native title in Australia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia here].
* [2] Read Senator Siewert's explanation of the amendment and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-14.68.1 here]. Read more about proof of continuity in this [http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/ntru/publications/issues/ip97n18.pdf issue paper] (51.8 KB).
* [3] Read more about the bill [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4093 here]. More background information is available in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0809/09bd124 bills digest].

senate vote 2009-09-14#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-05-16 12:16:07

Title

Description

The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-14.69.1 amendment] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Rachel_Siewert&mpc=Senate&house=senate Rachel Siewert], which means that it was rejected. The amendment was:
''(1) Schedule 6, page 52 (after line 5), after item 12, insert:''
''12A After section 61''
''Insert:''
''61AA Presumptions relating to applications''
''(1) This section applies to an application for a native title determination brought under section 61 of the Act where the following circumstances exist:''[1]
''(a) the native title claim group defined in the application applies for a determination of native title rights and interests where the rights and interests are found to be possessed under laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group;''
''(b) members of the native title claim group reasonably believe the laws and customs so acknowledged to be traditional;''
''(c) the members of the native title claim group, by their laws and customs have a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application;''
''(d) the members of the native title claim group reasonably believe that persons from whom one or more of them was descended, acknowledged and observed traditional laws and customs at sovereignty by which those persons had a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application.''
''(2) Where this section applies to an application it shall be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary:''
''(a) that the laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group are traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty sovereignty];''
''(b) that the native title claim group has a connection with the land or waters by those traditional laws and customs;''
''(c) if the native title rights and interests asserted are capable of recognition by the common law then the facts necessary for the recognition of those rights and interests by the common law are established.''
Senator Siewert explained that "''reverses the onus of proof so that native title holders do not have to prove continuity. There is a presumption of continuity. In fact, the state government and those opposing a claim have to prove otherwise.''"[1]
Senator Siewert explained that "reverses the onus of proof so that native title holders do not have to prove continuity. There is a presumption of continuity. In fact, the state government and those opposing a claim have to prove otherwise."[1]
''Background to the bill''
The bill amends the ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Title_Act_1993 Native Title Act 1993]'' to:
* enable the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Australia Federal Court] to determine whether the court, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Native_Title_Tribunal 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.[2]
References
* [1] Read more about native title in Australia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia here].
* [2] Read Senator Siewert's explanation of the amendment and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-14.68.1 here]. Read more about proof of continuity in this [http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/ntru/publications/issues/ip97n18.pdf issue paper] (51.8 KB).
* [3] Read more about the bill [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4093 here]. More background information is available in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0809/09bd124 bills digest].
* [3] Read more about the bill [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4093 here]. More background information is available in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0809/09bd124 bills digest].

senate vote 2009-09-14#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-05-16 12:14:15

Title

~~Native Title Amendment Bill 2009 — In Committee~~
Native Title Amendment Bill 2009 - In Committee - Proof of continuity

Description

~~<p pwmotiontext="moved">That the amendment (<b>Senator Siewert’s</b>) be agreed to.</p>~~
The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-14.69.1 amendment] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Rachel_Siewert&mpc=Senate&house=senate Rachel Siewert], which means that it was rejected. The amendment was:
''(1) Schedule 6, page 52 (after line 5), after item 12, insert:''
''12A After section 61''
''Insert:''
''61AA Presumptions relating to applications''
''(1) This section applies to an application for a native title determination brought under section 61 of the Act where the following circumstances exist:''[1]
''(a) the native title claim group defined in the application applies for a determination of native title rights and interests where the rights and interests are found to be possessed under laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group;''
''(b) members of the native title claim group reasonably believe the laws and customs so acknowledged to be traditional;''
''(c) the members of the native title claim group, by their laws and customs have a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application;''
''(d) the members of the native title claim group reasonably believe that persons from whom one or more of them was descended, acknowledged and observed traditional laws and customs at sovereignty by which those persons had a connection with the land or waters the subject of the application.''
''(2) Where this section applies to an application it shall be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary:''
''(a) that the laws acknowledged and customs observed by the native title claim group are traditional laws and customs acknowledged and observed at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty sovereignty];''
''(b) that the native title claim group has a connection with the land or waters by those traditional laws and customs;''
''(c) if the native title rights and interests asserted are capable of recognition by the common law then the facts necessary for the recognition of those rights and interests by the common law are established.''
Senator Siewert explained that "''reverses the onus of proof so that native title holders do not have to prove continuity. There is a presumption of continuity. In fact, the state government and those opposing a claim have to prove otherwise.''"[1]
''Background to the bill''
The bill amends the ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Title_Act_1993 Native Title Act 1993]'' to:
* enable the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Australia Federal Court] to determine whether the court, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Native_Title_Tribunal 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.[2]
References
* [1] Read more about native title in Australia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title_in_Australia here].
* [2] Read Senator Siewert's explanation of the amendment and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-14.68.1 here]. Read more about proof of continuity in this [http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/ntru/publications/issues/ip97n18.pdf issue paper] (51.8 KB).
* [3] Read more about the bill [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4093 here]. More background information is available in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd0809/09bd124 bills digest].