Photo of Kim Carr

We can't say anything concrete about how Kim Carr voted on increasing access under Freedom of Information law

How Kim Carr voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should amend freedom of information (FOI) legislation to increase public access to government data and documents

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing access under Freedom of Information law” 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
no votes listed

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing access under Freedom of Information law” which Kim Carr could have attended.

Division Kim Carr Supporters vote

18th Oct 2021, 7:12 PM – Senate Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Equity Investments and Other Measures) Bill 2021 - in Committee - Freedom of Information

absent Yes

18th Jun 2013, 7:53 PM – Senate Parliamentary Service Amendment (Freedom of Information) Bill 2013 — Third Reading — Read a third time

absent No

18th Jun 2013, 7:46 PM – Senate Parliamentary Service Amendment (Freedom of Information) Bill 2013 - In Committee - Report individial expenditure

absent Yes

18th Jun 2013, 7:34 PM – Senate Parliamentary Service Amendment (Freedom of Information) Bill 2013 - In Committee - Freedom of information for administrative matters

absent Yes

18th Jun 2013, 7:28 PM – Senate Parliamentary Service Amendment (Freedom of Information) Bill 2013 — In Committee — Freedom of certain information

absent Yes

13th Aug 2009, 11:49 AM – Senate Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Bill 2008 [2009] — In Committee — Remove deeming provisions exempting agencies

No Yes

How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out

Kim Carr 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.