We can't say anything concrete about how Stephen Conroy voted on public transport
How Stephen Conroy voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase funding for public transport within and between Australia's major urban centres and prioritise it over funding for private transport infrastructure projects
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for public transport” which Stephen Conroy could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Stephen Conroy on this policy.
| Division | Stephen Conroy | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for public transport” which Stephen Conroy could have attended.
| Division | Stephen Conroy | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
19th Apr 2016, 6:49 PM – Senate Motions - Public Transport - Prioritise funding |
absent | Yes |
13th Oct 2015, 4:07 PM – Senate Motions — East West Link |
absent | Yes |
24th Nov 2014, 4:59 PM – Senate Motions - Westconnex - Don't construct WestConnex |
absent | Yes |
24th Sep 2014, 4:03 PM – Senate Motions - East West Link - Redirect funding to public transport |
No | Yes |
12th May 2010, 4:09 PM – Senate Motions - High Speed Rail Network - Feasibility study |
absent | Yes |
18th Sep 2007, 3:53 PM – Senate Motions - Public Transport - Fund public transport |
absent | Yes |
27th Nov 2006, 4:10 PM – Senate Motions - Newcastle City Council - Renewables and public transport |
absent | Yes |
10th Aug 2006, 9:40 AM – Senate Motions - Fuel Prices - Public transport & alternative fuels |
absent | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Stephen Conroy 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.