We can't say anything concrete about how Matthew Canavan voted on a review of our representatives' eligibility
How Matthew Canavan voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should conduct a review of our senators and members of parliament (MPs) to make sure that they are all eligible to represent us in Parliament under the Australian Constitution
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for a review of our representatives' eligibility” which Matthew Canavan could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Matthew Canavan on this policy.
| Division | Matthew Canavan | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for a review of our representatives' eligibility” which Matthew Canavan could have attended.
| Division | Matthew Canavan | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
5th Sep 2017, 5:17 PM – Senate Committees - Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee - Reference |
absent | Yes |
4th Sep 2017, 10:50 AM – Senate Motions - Parliamentary Representation - Qualifications of Senators |
absent | Yes |
15th Aug 2017, 3:53 PM – Senate Committees - Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee - Reference |
absent | Yes |
9th Aug 2017, 4:42 PM – Senate Committees - Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee - Reference |
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 Matthew Canavan was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.