Compare how Stephen Conroy and David Feeney voted on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

Now this is where it gets a bit tricky… Two people might vote the same way on votes they both attended, so their votes are 100% in agreement. They might also have voted in a way we’d describe differently when looking at all of one person's votes. If the other person didn’t or couldn’t have attended those votes we leave those out of the comparison. Because that just wouldn’t be fair now, would it?

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” which either Stephen Conroy or David Feeney could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Stephen Conroy and David Feeney on this policy. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".

Division	Stephen Conroy	David Feeney	Supporters vote
30th Nov 2009, 11:52 AM – Senate Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills - Third Reading - Read a third time	Yes	Yes	Yes
25th Nov 2009, 12:42 PM – Senate Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills - Second Reading - Read a second time	Yes	Yes	Yes
13th Aug 2009, 11:13 AM – Senate Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related bills - Second Reading - Read a second time	Yes	Yes	Yes

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” which either Stephen Conroy or David Feeney could have attended. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".

Division	Stephen Conroy	David Feeney	Supporters vote
22nd Feb 2010, 5:56 PM – Senate Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2010 and related bills - First Reading - Proceed without formalities	Yes	Yes	Yes
30th Nov 2009, 9:53 PM – Senate Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills - In Committee - Free permits for coal fired electricity generators	No	No	Yes
30th Nov 2009, 8:05 PM – Senate Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills - In Committee - Limit overseas permits	No	No	Yes
30th Nov 2009, 6:27 PM – Senate Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills - In Committee - Free allocation of permits	No	No	Yes
30th Nov 2009, 12:23 PM – Senate Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills - In Committee - Insert mandatory requirement to consider	No	No	Yes
30th Nov 2009, 12:00 PM – Senate Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill 2009 [No. 2] and Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Amendment (Household Assistance) Bill 2009 [No. 2] - Third Reading - Read a third time	Yes	Yes	Yes
25th Nov 2009, 4:13 PM – Senate Motions - Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Legislation - Defer question of third reading	No	No	No
25th Nov 2009, 12:35 PM – Senate Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills - Second Reading - Refer to committee	absent	absent	No
25th Nov 2009, 12:24 PM – Senate Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills - Second Reading - Defer consideration	No	No	No
25th Nov 2009, 12:14 PM – Senate Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills - Second Reading - Commit to reducing emissions	No	No	Yes
25th Nov 2009, 11:01 AM – Senate Business - Rearrangement - Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation	Yes	Yes	Yes
17th Nov 2009, 1:15 PM – Senate Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] - First Reading - Proceed without formalities	absent	Yes	Yes
13th Aug 2009, 11:06 AM – Senate Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 and related acts - Second Reading - Commit to reducing emissions	No	No	Yes
4th Dec 2008, 10:04 AM – Senate Motions - Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme - Delay introduction	No	No	No