We can't say anything concrete about how Bill Heffernan voted on landholders' right to say no to mining and gas exploration
How Bill Heffernan voted compared to someone who agrees that landholders, particularly farmers, should be able to say no to mining and gas exploration on their land (in other words, they should be able to lock the gate)
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for landholders' right to say no to mining and gas exploration” which Bill Heffernan could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Bill Heffernan on this policy.
| Division | Bill Heffernan | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
6th Mar 2014, 11:40 AM – Senate Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2013 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for landholders' right to say no to mining and gas exploration” which Bill Heffernan could have attended.
| Division | Bill Heffernan | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
24th Nov 2015, 3:56 PM – Senate Motions - Coal Seam Gas - Landholders' right to say "no" |
absent | Yes |
5th Mar 2015 – Senate Motions — Coal Seam Gas |
absent | Yes |
9th Jul 2014, 3:51 PM – Senate Motions - Coal Seam Gas - Right to say no |
No | Yes |
15th May 2014, 12:14 PM – Senate Motions - Coal Seam Gas - Bentley blockade |
absent | Yes |
6th Mar 2014, 12:31 PM – Senate Motions - Lock the Gate Alliance - Act on concerns of the Alliance |
absent | Yes |
13th Feb 2014, 12:23 PM – Senate Motions - Coal Seam Gas - Landholders' right to refuse |
absent | Yes |
14th Nov 2013, 11:23 AM – Senate Motions - Agriculture - Coal seam gas wells |
absent | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Bill Heffernan has only voted once on this policy and it wasn't on a "strong" vote. So it's not possible to draw a clear conclusion about their position.
This could be because there were simply not many relevant divisions (formal votes) during the time they've been in parliament (most votes happen on "the voices", so we simply have no decent record) or they were absent for votes that could have contributed to their voting record.