We can't say anything concrete about how James Stevens voted on protecting whistleblowers
How James Stevens voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce legislation to protect people who disclose information for the benefit of the public interest and protect the journalists who report it
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for protecting whistleblowers” which James Stevens could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of James Stevens on this policy.
| Division | James Stevens | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for protecting whistleblowers” which James Stevens could have attended.
| Division | James Stevens | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
24th Nov 2022, 1:09 PM – Representatives National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 - Consideration in Detail - Journalist activities not corrupt conduct |
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 James Stevens was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.