We can't say anything concrete about how Peter Whish-Wilson voted on increasing the cost of humanities degrees
How Peter Whish-Wilson voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should substantially increase the cost of humanities degrees at university (that is, degrees focussed on the study of human culture and society) in order to discourage students from enrolling in the the subject area and instead enrol in other subject areas, such as mathematics
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing the cost of humanities degrees” which Peter Whish-Wilson could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Peter Whish-Wilson on this policy.
| Division | Peter Whish-Wilson | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
8th Oct 2020, 5:41 PM – Senate Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020 - Third Reading - Pass the bill |
absent | Yes |
8th Oct 2020, 1:09 PM – Senate Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020 - Agree to remaining stages |
absent | Yes |
8th Oct 2020, 11:49 AM – Senate Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing the cost of humanities degrees” which Peter Whish-Wilson could have attended.
| Division | Peter Whish-Wilson | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
26th Nov 2024, 7:26 PM – Senate Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 - in Committee - Date of indexation and Society & Culture |
Yes | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Peter Whish-Wilson has only voted once on this policy and it wasn't on a "strong" vote. So it's not possible to draw a clear conclusion about their position.
This could be because there were simply not many relevant divisions (formal votes) during the time they've been in parliament (most votes happen on "the voices", so we simply have no decent record) or they were absent for votes that could have contributed to their voting record.