How Mehmet Tillem voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should allow companies to mine coal seam (CSG), tight and shale gas

Division Mehmet Tillem Supporters vote Division outcome

15th May 2014, 12:14 PM – Senate Motions - Coal Seam Gas - Bentley blockade

Show detail

The majority rejected the motion to support the Bentley blockade against gas exploration, which means that it was rejected. It was introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters.

Text of the motion

That the Senate-

(a)   notes:

(i)   the huge community opposition to Metgasco's plans to drill for tight gas near Bentley in New South Wales,

(ii)   that tight gas extraction involves hydraulic fracking which risks precious water resources, and

(iii)   that 84.5 per cent of Bentley locals want their lands and road gas-field free;

(b)   congratulates the Bentley blockaders for their commitment to protecting their land, water, the climate and regional communities from big gas; and

(c)   calls on:

(i)   the New South Wales Government to respect the rights of protesters to peacefully protest, and to respond to the community's valid concerns by revoking Metgasco's gas exploration permit, and

(ii)   the Australian Government to extend the current protections for water resources under our national environment laws to all unconventional gas, to give landholders the right to say no to gas mining on their land, and to not hand responsibility for protecting land and water from big gas to state governments.

No No Not passed by a modest majority

19th Mar 2014, 4:01 PM – Senate Motions - Coal Seam Gas - Stop further approvals

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters, which means that it was rejected.

The motion was:

That the Senate-

(a) notes:

(i) recent revelations of threats to water from the unconventional gas industry, including water contamination with uranium at 20 times the safe level, at coal seam gas company Santos' Pilliga operations,(Read more about this contamination here. )

(ii) recent reports of contamination of groundwater by asbestos contained in drilling fluids at Origin's coal seam gas operations in Queensland, and(Read more about this asbestos scare here.)

(iii) the important role of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development in advising on project impacts and conducting bioregional groundwater assessments; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) not issue any further approvals for unconventional gas mining under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act),

(ii) suspend all existing unconventional gas approvals,

(iii) maintain the funding for the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development,

(iv) expand the federal protection for water under the EPBC Act to include shale gas and tight gas mining, and

(v) retain federal powers to protect water from coal seam gas, rather than seeking to delegate these to state governments.

No No (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

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

Show detail

The majority disagreed with the bill's main idea (in other words, they voted against reading the bill for a second time). This means that the bill was rejected and won't be considered further.

Main idea of the bill

The bill would have given landholders the right to say no to gas and coal mining activities by corporations on food producing land, unless the corporations had written authorisation that followed particular requirements.

Background to the bill

Greens Senator Larissa Waters introduced the bill as a private member's bill. She believed that the bill was necessary because the efforts in Queensland and New South Wales to protect prime agricultural land had failed to protect farmers (see ABC News). You can watch Senator Waters' second reading speech on youtube.

No No Not passed by a modest majority

13th Feb 2014, 12:23 PM – Senate Motions - Coal Seam Gas - Landholders' right to refuse

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters. This means that the motion is rejected.

The motion was:

That the Senate-

(a) notes:

(i) the concern of communities in South Australia and Western Australia about their land and water being threatened by shale and other unconventional gas mining,(See, for example, this article on community concerns about fracking in South Australia. )

(ii) that landholders lack the legal right to refuse shale and other unconventional gas mining on their land, and

(iii) the scientific uncertainty surrounding the environmental and health implications of hydraulic fracturing (' fracking') for shale and other unconventional gas mining; and(Read more about fracking here.)

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) ban the use of fracking by the unconventional gas industry across Australia, and

(ii) support the Australian Greens' bill to give landholders the legal right to refuse shale and other unconventional gas mining on their land.

absent No Not passed by a modest majority

14th Nov 2013, 11:23 AM – Senate Motions - Agriculture - Coal seam gas wells

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters. This means that the motion was rejected.

Read more about coal seam gas here.

Text of the motion

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) recent reports in the Sydney Morning Herald that the Prime Minister personally promised Tara resident, Ms Debbie Orr, that nobody should be forced to have a gas well on their property,

(ii) the Coalition's election platform that access to prime agricultural land should only be allowed with the farmer's agreement – the farmer should have the right to say yes or no to coal seam gas exploration and extraction on their property, and

(iii) that there are no constitutional limitations preventing the Federal Government from giving Australian landholders the legal right to say no to coal seam gas; and

(b) calls on the Government to follow through on these statements by giving landholders the legal right to say no to coal seam gas mining on their land under federal law.

No No Not passed by a modest majority

How "voted very strongly for" is worked out

The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes get 50 points, less important votes get 10 points, and less important votes for which the MP was absent get 2 points. In important votes the MP gets awarded the full 50 points for voting the same as the policy, 0 points for voting against the policy, and 25 points for not voting. In less important votes, the MP gets 10 points for voting with the policy, 0 points for voting against, and 1 (out of 2) if absent.

Then, the number gets converted to a simple english language phrase based on the range of values it's within.

No of votes Points Out of
Most important votes (50 points)      
MP voted with policy 1 50 50
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 3 30 30
MP voted against policy 0 0 0
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 1 1 2
Total: 81 82

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Senators are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.

Agreement score = MP's points / total points = 81 / 82 = 99%.

And then