How Gary Humphries voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should make laws and regulations that protect and conserve the health of the Great Barrier Reef for future generations

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for protecting the Great Barrier Reef” which Gary Humphries could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Gary Humphries on this policy.

Division Gary Humphries Supporters vote
no votes listed

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for protecting the Great Barrier Reef” which Gary Humphries could have attended.

Division Gary Humphries Supporters vote

17th Jun 2013, 3:57 PM – Senate Motions - Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area - Maintain heritage status

absent Yes

29th Oct 2012, 3:45 PM – Senate Motions - Nationally Threatened Species and Wilderness Areas - Federal responsibility

absent Yes

10th Oct 2012, 3:55 PM – Senate Documents - Reef Rescue Program - Great Barrier Reef

absent Yes

11th Sep 2012, 4:02 PM – Senate Documents - Great Barrier Reef - Federal responsibility

absent Yes

22nd Mar 2012, 1:56 PM – Senate Motions - Great Barrier Reef - Oppose offshore dumping

absent Yes

22nd Mar 2012, 1:53 PM – Senate Motions - Mining - Moratorium on coal seam gas

absent Yes

10th Nov 2011 – Senate Motions - Great Barrier Reef - Suspend applications and approvals until after UNESCO assessment

absent Yes

9th Nov 2011 – Senate Motions - Great Barrier Reef - Suspend applications and approvals until after UNESCO assessment

absent Yes

13th Sep 2011 – Senate Motions - Coal Seam Gas - Moratorium on new coal seam gas approvals

absent Yes

24th Jun 2008, 3:48 PM – Senate Motions - Climate Change - Act on conference conclusions

No Yes

How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out

Gary Humphries 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.