We can't say anything concrete about how Bill Heffernan voted on increasing fishing restrictions
How Bill Heffernan voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase fishing restrictions so that fish populations are sustainable
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing fishing restrictions” which Bill Heffernan could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Bill Heffernan on this policy.
| Division | Bill Heffernan | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing fishing restrictions” which Bill Heffernan could have attended.
| Division | Bill Heffernan | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
1st Dec 2014, 3:49 PM – Senate Motions - Super Trawlers - Permanent ban |
absent | Yes |
19th Sep 2012, 11:00 AM – Senate Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 - Third Reading - Read a third time |
absent | Yes |
18th Sep 2012, 2:06 PM – Senate Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 — Second Reading — Read a second time |
No | Yes |
11th Sep 2012, 4:05 PM – Senate Motions — Super Trawlers — Ban all super trawlers |
absent | Yes |
16th Aug 2012, 12:05 PM – Senate Motions — Australian Small Pelagic Fishery - Reverse decision to lift quota |
absent | Yes |
19th Mar 2012, 4:32 PM – Senate Motions — Western Australia Export Fishing Licences - Refuse export licence until observer program established |
absent | Yes |
19th Jun 2006, 3:43 PM – Senate Motions - Sea Bottom Trawl Fishing - Address destructive impact |
absent | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Bill Heffernan 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.