We can't say anything concrete about how John Hogg voted on ending illegal logging
How John Hogg voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce legislation to end illegal logging and prevent the importation of timber that has been illegally harvested.
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for ending illegal logging” which John Hogg could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of John Hogg on this policy.
| Division | John Hogg | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
19th Nov 2012, 8:42 PM – Senate Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill 2012 - Third Reading - Pass the bill |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for ending illegal logging” which John Hogg could have attended.
| Division | John Hogg | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
15th Aug 2012, 3:56 PM – Senate Motions - Forestry - Westpac and logging on the Solomon Islands |
absent | Yes |
6th Sep 2006, 4:19 PM – Senate Motions - Papua New Guinea: Logging and Human Rights - Take immediate action |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
John Hogg 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.