We can't say anything concrete about how Sue Boyce voted on protecting whistleblowers
How Sue Boyce voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce legislation to protect people who disclose information for the benefit of the public interest and protect the journalists who report it
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for protecting whistleblowers” 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 protecting whistleblowers” which Sue Boyce could have attended.
| Division | Sue Boyce | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
19th Mar 2013, 3:47 PM – Senate Motions - Public Interest Disclosure - Protect whistle blowers |
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.