We can't say anything concrete about how Ursula Stephens voted on increasing Aboriginal land rights
How Ursula Stephens voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land rights by, for example, increasing their legal recognition and protection
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing Aboriginal land rights” 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 increasing Aboriginal land rights” which Ursula Stephens could have attended.
| Division | Ursula Stephens | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
20th Mar 2014, 12:20 PM – Senate Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Delegation) Regulation 2013 - Regulations and Determinations - Disallow the Regulation |
absent | Yes |
14th Sep 2009, 6:19 PM – Senate Native Title Amendment Bill 2009 - In Committee - Proof of continuity |
absent | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Ursula Stephens was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.