We can't say anything concrete about how Arthur Sinodinos voted on a Royal Commission into banking
How Arthur Sinodinos voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should establish a Royal Commission into misconduct within the banking and financial services sector.
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for a Royal Commission into banking” which Arthur Sinodinos could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Arthur Sinodinos on this policy.
| Division | Arthur Sinodinos | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for a Royal Commission into banking” which Arthur Sinodinos could have attended.
| Division | Arthur Sinodinos | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
28th Jun 2018, 12:25 PM – Senate Motions - Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry - Funding and farmers |
absent | Yes |
19th Apr 2016, 7:47 PM – Senate Motions - Financial Services - Royal Commission into banking sector |
absent | Yes |
19th Apr 2016, 6:41 PM – Senate Motions - Financial Services - Establish a Royal Commission |
absent | Yes |
24th Jun 2015 – Senate Committees — Financial Services |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Arthur Sinodinos 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.