We can't say anything concrete about how Stephen Conroy voted on protecting whales within Australian waters
How Stephen Conroy voted compared to someone who agrees that the Federal Government should protect whales within Australian waters by, for example, taking action against the Japanese Government over its whaling program in the Southern Ocean
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for protecting whales within Australian waters” 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 protecting whales within Australian waters” which Stephen Conroy could have attended.
| Division | Stephen Conroy | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
28th Feb 2013, 12:16 PM – Senate Motions - Whaling - Seek explanation for non-compliance with injunction |
absent | Yes |
21st Nov 2012, 4:00 PM – Senate Motions - Seismic Survey - Harm to marine wildlife |
absent | Yes |
13th May 2010, 10:13 AM – Senate Motions - Petroleum Exploration - Protect marine wildlife of Margaret River coastline |
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.