We can't say anything concrete about how Stephen Conroy voted on increasing political transparency
How Stephen Conroy voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase transparency requirements for political parties (for example, requiring full and prompt disclosure of any political donations on easy-to-search public websites)
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing political transparency” 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 |
|---|---|---|
11th Mar 2009, 12:19 PM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2008 [2009] - Second Reading - Agree to the bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing political transparency” which Stephen Conroy could have attended.
| Division | Stephen Conroy | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
3rd Dec 2013 – Senate Motions - Political Donations - Disclosure and ban on overseas donations |
absent | Yes |
8th Feb 2007, 10:37 AM – Senate Motions - Government Accountability and Transparency - Canadian bill |
absent | Yes |
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 Stephen Conroy was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.