We can't say anything concrete about how Trish Crossin voted on increasing restrictions on gambling
How Trish Crossin 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 Trish Crossin could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Trish Crossin on this policy.
| Division | Trish Crossin | 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 Trish Crossin could have attended.
| Division | Trish Crossin | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
9th Feb 2012, 12:55 PM – Senate Documents — Gambling; Order for the Production of Documents |
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 Trish Crossin was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.