We can't say anything concrete about how Larissa Waters voted on changing the wording of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act
How Larissa Waters voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should change section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act so that the words "insult", "offend", "humiliate" are replaced with the word "harass"
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for changing the wording of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act” which Larissa Waters could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Larissa Waters on this policy.
| Division | Larissa Waters | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
30th Mar 2017, 8:45 PM – Senate Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for changing the wording of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act” which Larissa Waters could have attended.
| Division | Larissa Waters | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
30th Mar 2017, 10:04 PM – Senate Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 - in Committee - Change 18C wording |
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 Larissa Waters was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.