We can't say anything concrete about how Sue Boyce voted on increasing parliamentary entitlements for current MPs and Senators
How Sue Boyce voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal governmnet should increase parliamentary entitlements for current MPs and Senators, such as legitimate expenditure, salary packages, superannuation entitlements and/or other allowances like the printing allowance
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing parliamentary entitlements for current MPs and Senators” 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 parliamentary entitlements for current MPs and Senators” which Sue Boyce could have attended.
| Division | Sue Boyce | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
14th May 2009, 10:34 AM – Senate Motions - Remuneration Tribunal Determination - Electorate allowance |
absent | No |
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.