Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard   

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Saturday, 18 December 1993
Page: 5191


Senator CHAMARETTE (9.53 p.m.) —Surprisingly enough, the Greens wish to indicate that we support this amendment. We believe that it is in the best interests of native titleholders. Mr Temporary Chairman, while we appreciate that a division may take time and you may not want to call it, we still would register our support for that amendment.

  The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—The question is that the first part of Senator Spindler's amendment 9A be agreed to.

  Question resolved in the affirmative.


The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The question now is that the second part of amendment 9A moved by Senator Spindler be agreed to.

  Question resolved in the negative.


The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Chamarette, you have an amendment at this stage?


Senator CHAMARETTE (9.54 p.m.) —Yes. I move:

8.Clause 33, page 20, line 2, after "party", insert "who has negotiated in good faith".

9.Clause 36, pages 20 and 21, line 35 (page 20) to line 5 (page 21) omit subclause (2).

Looking at the running sheet, the Greens have now moved amendments Nos 8 and 9 on their list that was circulated in the chamber. I explain that amendment No. 8 refers to clause 33 and simply inserts the phrase `who has negotiated in good faith'. I think that is a right and proper requirement to have in the circumstances. We seek to omit clause 36(2) under `Profit-sharing conditions not to be determined'. We want to omit the following:

The arbitral body must not determine a condition under paragraph (1)(c) that has the effect that native title parties are to be entitled to payments worked out by reference to:

  (a) the amount of profits made; or

  (b) any income derived; or

  (c) any things produced;

by any grantee party as a result of doing anything in relation to the land or waters concerned after the act is done.

It is fairly obvious to us that this is a discriminatory clause which actually seeks to undermine the economic resource base of native titleholders, and we are opposed to this.