We can't say anything concrete about how Anthony Chisholm voted on increasing funding for vocational education
How Anthony Chisholm voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase funding for the vocational education sector, which includes TAFEs, apprenticeships and traineeships
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing funding for vocational education” which Anthony Chisholm could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Anthony Chisholm on this policy.
| Division | Anthony Chisholm | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
17th Oct 2019, 11:49 AM – Senate Emergency Response Fund Bill 2019 and another - in Committee - $1 billion to TAFE |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing funding for vocational education” which Anthony Chisholm could have attended.
| Division | Anthony Chisholm | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
24th Jun 2021, 12:29 PM – Senate Motions - Employment, Western Australia - Resources Industry skills shortage |
absent | Yes |
17th Oct 2019, 11:31 AM – Senate Emergency Response Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019 - in Committee - The Education Investment Fund |
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 Anthony Chisholm was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.