We can't say anything concrete about how Ralph Babet voted on protecting whistleblowers
How Ralph Babet voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce legislation to protect people who disclose information for the benefit of the public interest and protect the journalists who report it
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for protecting whistleblowers” which Ralph Babet could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Ralph Babet on this policy.
| Division | Ralph Babet | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
15th Jun 2023, 10:35 AM – Senate Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 - in Committee - Meaning of public interest disclosure |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for protecting whistleblowers” which Ralph Babet could have attended.
| Division | Ralph Babet | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
15th Jun 2023, 11:04 AM – Senate Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 - in Committee - Parliamentary staff |
absent | Yes |
10th May 2023, 11:33 AM – Senate Public Interest Disclosure Amendment (Review) Bill 2022 - Second Reading - Whistleblowers |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Ralph Babet 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.