We can't say anything concrete about how John Faulkner voted on increasing restrictions on gambling
How John Faulkner voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase restrictions on the gambling industry in order to address the issue of problem gambling
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing restrictions on gambling” which John Faulkner could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of John Faulkner on this policy.
| Division | John Faulkner | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing restrictions on gambling” which John Faulkner could have attended.
| Division | John Faulkner | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
22nd Sep 2014, 6:08 PM – Senate Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 - in Committee - Interactive Gambling Act and ACMA |
absent | No |
5th Mar 2014, 12:27 PM – Senate Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 — In Committee — Keep schedule 1 (on gambling) unchanged |
absent | No |
9th Feb 2012, 12:55 PM – Senate Documents — Gambling; Order for the Production of Documents |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
John Faulkner 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.