We can't say anything concrete about how Mark Vaile voted on extending government benefits to same-sex couples
How Mark Vaile 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 Mark Vaile could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Mark Vaile on this policy.
| Division | Mark Vaile | 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 Mark Vaile could have attended.
| Division | Mark Vaile | 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 |
No | 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
Mark Vaile 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.