We can't say anything concrete about how Nick Xenophon voted on increasing protection of Aboriginal heritage sites
How Nick Xenophon voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase the protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage sites
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing protection of Aboriginal heritage sites” which Nick Xenophon could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Nick Xenophon on this policy.
| Division | Nick Xenophon | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing protection of Aboriginal heritage sites” which Nick Xenophon could have attended.
| Division | Nick Xenophon | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
12th Sep 2017, 4:08 PM – Senate Motions - Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area - Protect cultural heritage values |
absent | Yes |
3rd May 2016, 3:57 PM – Senate Motions - Budget - Radioactive Waste |
absent | Yes |
19th Mar 2013, 3:50 PM – Senate Motions - Quinkan Rock Art Galleries - Protect from mining activities |
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 Nick Xenophon was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.