Compare how Lin Thorp and Sue Boyce voted on funding the national school chaplaincy program

Now this is where it gets a bit tricky… Two people might vote the same way on votes they both attended, so their votes are 100% in agreement. They might also have voted in a way we’d describe differently when looking at all of one person's votes. If the other person didn’t or couldn’t have attended those votes we leave those out of the comparison. Because that just wouldn’t be fair now, would it?

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for funding the national school chaplaincy program” which either Lin Thorp or Sue Boyce could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Lin Thorp and Sue Boyce on this policy. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".

Division	Lin Thorp	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 funding the national school chaplaincy program” which either Lin Thorp or Sue Boyce could have attended. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".

Division	Lin Thorp	Sue Boyce	Supporters vote
26th Jun 2014, 12:51 PM – Senate Motions - Youth Mental Health - Redirect chaplaincy funding to qualified mental health workers	No	absent	No
27th Jun 2012, 6:22 PM – Senate Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2012 - Second Reading - Replace chaplaincy with counselling	No	No	No
25th Nov 2009, 4:25 PM – Senate Motions - National School Chaplaincy Program - Continue program	-	Yes	Yes