How Amanda Vanstone voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should introduce legislation to end illegal logging and prevent the importation of timber that has been illegally harvested.

Division Amanda Vanstone Supporters vote Division outcome

6th Sep 2006, 4:19 PM – Senate Motions - Papua New Guinea: Logging and Human Rights - Take immediate action

Show detail

The majority voted against the motion introduced by Greens Senator Bob Brown to take immediate action to investigate logging practices in Papua New Guinea.

Wording of the motion

That the Senate—

(a) recognises that the logging of ancient rainforests in Papua New Guinea (PNG) is driving biodiversity loss and human rights abuses in that country at an alarming rate;

(b) notes that:

(i) PNG and Australian conservation and community groups have filed a formal complaint with the Australian National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises against the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ), and

(ii) the complaint alleges that the ANZ is actively facilitating and supporting the PNG operations of Malaysian logging giant Rimbunan Hijau, a company whose operations involve serious human rights abuses, environmentally-destructive logging practices and repeated serious conduct;

(c) supports the actions of the conservation and community groups in bringing this potential breach of the guidelines to the Government’s attention; and

(d) calls on the Government to take immediate action to investigate the allegations with a view to ending the forest destruction and human rights abuses occurring in PNG.

absent Yes Not passed by a large majority

How "never voted" 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 other than that they have "never voted" on this policy.