We can't say anything concrete about how Kim Carr voted on requiring every native title claimant to sign land use agreements
How Kim Carr voted compared to someone who agrees that all native title claimants need to sign an Indigenous Land Use Agreement before the Agreement can be registered by the Native Title Registrar (agreements like this let, for example, mining companies mine in an area covered by native title)
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for requiring every native title claimant to sign land use agreements” which Kim Carr could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Kim Carr on this policy.
| Division | Kim Carr | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
13th Jun 2017, 7:26 PM – Senate Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea |
absent | No |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for requiring every native title claimant to sign land use agreements” which Kim Carr could have attended.
| Division | Kim Carr | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
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 Kim Carr was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.