We can't say anything concrete about how Nigel Scullion voted on an emissions reduction fund
How Nigel Scullion voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce an emissions reduction fund so it can buy domestic greenhouse gas emissions reductions and offsets by reverse auction. This is a key part of the Coalition Government's Direct Action policy.
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for an emissions reduction fund” which Nigel Scullion could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Nigel Scullion on this policy.
| Division | Nigel Scullion | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
30th Oct 2014, 9:04 PM – Senate Carbon Farming Initiative Amendment Bill 2014 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for an emissions reduction fund” which Nigel Scullion could have attended.
| Division | Nigel Scullion | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
30th Oct 2014, 9:01 PM – Senate Carbon Farming Initiative Amendment Bill 2014 - Second Reading - Criticise the Direct Action policy |
absent | No |
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 Nigel Scullion was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.