We can't say anything concrete about how Sue Boyce voted on increasing freedom of political communication
How Sue Boyce voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase freedom of political communication in Australia by, for example, protecting people's right to inform others about issues and events in the public interest
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing freedom of political communication” 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 |
|---|---|---|
13th Sep 2007, 12:39 PM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007 - Second Reading - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing freedom of political communication” which Sue Boyce could have attended.
| Division | Sue Boyce | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
14th Nov 2013, 11:34 AM – Senate Motions - Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee Reference - Surveillance |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Sue Boyce 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.