We can't say anything concrete about how Kevin Rudd voted on extending government benefits to same-sex couples
How Kevin Rudd voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should extend any financial and work-related entitlements and benefits that currently only apply to heterosexual couples to same-sex couples and their children
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for extending government benefits to same-sex couples” which Kevin Rudd could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Kevin Rudd on this policy.
| Division | Kevin Rudd | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for extending government benefits to same-sex couples” which Kevin Rudd could have attended.
| Division | Kevin Rudd | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
4th Jun 2008, 8:00 PM – Representatives Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws - Superannuation) Bill 2008 - Second Reading - Keep motion to read a second time unchanged |
absent | Yes |
13th Aug 2007, 8:29 PM – Representatives Judges’ Pensions Amendment Bill 2007 - Second Reading - Same-sex de facto relationships |
absent | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Kevin Rudd was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.