We can't say anything concrete about how Sue Boyce voted on increasing restrictions on gambling
How Sue Boyce 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 Sue Boyce could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Sue Boyce on this policy.
| Division | Sue Boyce | 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 Sue Boyce could have attended.
| Division | Sue Boyce | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
5th Mar 2014, 12:27 PM – Senate Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 — In Committee — Keep schedule 1 (on gambling) unchanged |
absent | No |
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 Sue Boyce was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.