How Bill Heffernan voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should protect threatened forest and bushland habitats from logging.

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for protecting threatened forest and bushland habitats” 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 protecting threatened forest and bushland habitats” which Bill Heffernan could have attended.

Division Bill Heffernan Supporters vote

25th Jun 2013, 3:59 PM – Senate Motions - Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area - Prohibit logging

No Yes

20th Jun 2013, 12:11 PM – Senate Motions - National Parks - Protect

absent Yes

11th May 2010, 4:22 PM – Senate Motions - Environment: Millewa Forest - Stop logging

absent Yes

19th Mar 2009, 9:49 AM – Senate Motions - Protect the Swift Parrot - Deliberate Actions and Recovery Plan

absent Yes

4th Dec 2008, 10:39 AM – Senate Motions - Koala Habitat - Protect Bermagui habitat

absent Yes

29th Nov 2006, 3:45 PM – Senate Motions - Logging in Tasmania’s Weld River Valley - Halt logging

absent Yes

28th Mar 2006, 3:52 PM – Senate Motions - Wedge-Tailed Eagle - Protect habitat

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.