We can't say anything concrete about how Peter Whish-Wilson voted on using natural resource wealth for the benefit of all Australians
How Peter Whish-Wilson voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should use the wealth generated by mining for the benefit of Australian citizens, as encouraged by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) Principles
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for using natural resource wealth for the benefit of all Australians” 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 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for using natural resource wealth for the benefit of all Australians” which Peter Whish-Wilson could have attended.
| Division | Peter Whish-Wilson | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
25th Mar 2014, 1:51 PM – Senate Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 - Second Reading - Share mining boom benefits |
Yes | Yes |
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.