Mitch Fifield voted consistently against landholders' right to say no to mining and gas exploration
How Mitch Fifield 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 Mitch Fifield could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Mitch Fifield on this policy.
| Division | Mitch Fifield | 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 |
No | 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 Mitch Fifield could have attended.
| Division | Mitch Fifield | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
3rd Dec 2018, 4:18 PM – Senate Motions - Farmers' and Landholders' Rights - Right to refuse |
No | Yes |
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 |
No | 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 |
No | Yes |
6th Mar 2014, 12:31 PM – Senate Motions - Lock the Gate Alliance - Act on concerns of the Alliance |
No | Yes |
13th Feb 2014, 12:23 PM – Senate Motions - Coal Seam Gas - Landholders' right to refuse |
No | Yes |
14th Nov 2013, 11:23 AM – Senate Motions - Agriculture - Coal seam gas wells |
No | Yes |
How "voted consistently against" is worked out
They Vote For You gives each vote a score based on whether the MP voted in agreement with the policy or not. These scores are then averaged with a weighting across all votes that the MP could have voted on relevant to the policy. The overall average score is then converted to a simple english language phrase based on the range of values it's within.
When an MP votes in agreement with a policy the vote is scored as 100%. When they vote against the policy it is scored as 0% and when they are absent it is scored half way between the two at 50%. The half way point effectively says "we don't know whether they are for or against this policy".
The overall agreement score for the policy is worked out by a weighted average of the scores for each vote. The weighting has been chosen so that the most important votes have a weighting 5 times that of the less important votes. Also, absent votes on less important votes are weighted 5 times less again to not penalise MPs for not attending the less important votes. Pressure of other work means MPs or Senators are not always available to vote – it does not always mean they've abstained.
| Type of vote | Agreement score (s) | Weight (w) | No of votes (n) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Most important votes | MP voted with policy | 100% | 25 | 0 |
| MP voted against policy | 0% | 25 | 1 | |
| MP absent | 50% | 25 | 0 | |
| Less important votes | MP voted with policy | 100% | 5 | 0 |
| MP voted against policy | 0% | 5 | 7 | |
| MP absent | 50% | 1 | 1 | |
The final agreement score is a weighted average (weighted arithmetic mean) of the scores of the individual votes.
Average agreement score = sum(n×w×s) / sum(n×w) = 0.5 / 61 = 1%.
And then this average agreement score
- between 95% and 100% becomes "voted consistently for"
- between 85% and 95% becomes "voted almost always for"
- between 60% and 85% becomes "voted generally for"
- between 40% and 60% becomes "voted a mixture of for and against"
- between 15% and 40% becomes "voted generally against"
- between 5% and 15% becomes "voted almost always against"
- between 0% and 5% becomes "voted consistently against"