We can't say anything concrete about how Amanda Vanstone voted on protecting whistleblowers
How Amanda Vanstone 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 Amanda Vanstone could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Amanda Vanstone on this policy.
| Division | Amanda Vanstone | 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 Amanda Vanstone could have attended.
| Division | Amanda Vanstone | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
8th Feb 2007, 10:37 AM – Senate Motions - Government Accountability and Transparency - Canadian bill |
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 Amanda Vanstone was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.