We can't say anything concrete about how Wayne Swan voted on civil celebrants having the right to refuse to marry same-sex couples
How Wayne Swan voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should protect the right of celebrants to refuse to marry same-sex couples if doing so would be against their religious or conscientious beliefs
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for civil celebrants having the right to refuse to marry same-sex couples” which Wayne Swan could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Wayne Swan on this policy.
| Division | Wayne Swan | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
7th Dec 2017, 5:42 PM – Representatives Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 - Consideration in Detail - Religion & right to refuse |
absent | Yes |
7th Dec 2017, 11:03 AM – Representatives Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 - Consideration in Detail - Def of marriage + conscientious protections |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for civil celebrants having the right to refuse to marry same-sex couples” which Wayne Swan could have attended.
| Division | Wayne Swan | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
7th Dec 2017, 12:53 PM – Representatives Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 - Consideration in Detail - Defence appointed celebrants |
absent | Yes |
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 Wayne Swan was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.