We can't say anything concrete about how Kristina Keneally voted on Australia's timber industry
How Kristina Keneally voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should protect Australia's logging industry and the jobs it represents
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for Australia's timber industry” which Kristina Keneally could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Kristina Keneally on this policy.
| Division | Kristina Keneally | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for Australia's timber industry” which Kristina Keneally could have attended.
| Division | Kristina Keneally | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
12th May 2021, 4:30 PM – Senate Motions - Forestry Industry, Beef Industry - Condemn green groups |
Yes | Yes |
24th Feb 2021, 4:14 PM – Senate Motions - Forestry - End native forest logging |
absent | No |
15th Feb 2021, 5:28 PM – Senate Motions - Forestry - Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement |
absent | Yes |
10th Dec 2020, 7:10 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Industry Research and Development (Forestry Recovery Development Fund Program) Instrument 2020 - Disallow |
absent | No |
1st Sep 2020, 4:26 PM – Senate Motions - Forestry Industry - Condemn Greens |
absent | Yes |
26th Aug 2020, 4:21 PM – Senate Motions - Victoria: Forestry - Protect old-growth and high conservation value forests |
absent | No |
11th Jun 2020, 4:52 PM – Senate Motions - Forestry - Protect native forests |
absent | No |
12th Feb 2020, 4:30 PM – Senate Motions - Climate Change - Logging in the Tarkine |
absent | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Kristina Keneally 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.