We can't say anything concrete about how Stephen Conroy voted on funding the national school chaplaincy program
How Stephen Conroy voted compared to someone who agrees that The federal government should continue to fund the National School Chaplaincy Program (NSCP) to fund chaplains in Australian primary and secondary schools
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for funding the national school chaplaincy program” 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 funding the national school chaplaincy program” which Stephen Conroy could have attended.
| Division | Stephen Conroy | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
26th Jun 2014, 12:51 PM – Senate Motions - Youth Mental Health - Redirect chaplaincy funding to qualified mental health workers |
absent | No |
27th Jun 2012, 6:22 PM – Senate Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2012 - Second Reading - Replace chaplaincy with counselling |
absent | No |
25th Nov 2009, 4:25 PM – Senate Motions - National School Chaplaincy Program - Continue program |
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.