We can't say anything concrete about how Ursula Stephens voted on investing in climate science
How Ursula Stephens voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should invest in climate science to ensure that Australia is best equipped to deal with the challenges of climate change
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for investing in climate science” which Ursula Stephens could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Ursula Stephens on this policy.
| Division | Ursula Stephens | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for investing in climate science” which Ursula Stephens could have attended.
| Division | Ursula Stephens | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
14th Feb 2008, 10:22 AM – Senate Motions - Climate Change - Reverse decision to cut funding |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Ursula Stephens 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.