We can't say anything concrete about how Stephen Conroy voted on a Royal Commission into banking
How Stephen Conroy voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should establish a Royal Commission into misconduct within the banking and financial services sector.
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for a Royal Commission into banking” 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 a Royal Commission into banking” which Stephen Conroy could have attended.
| Division | Stephen Conroy | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
19th Apr 2016, 7:47 PM – Senate Motions - Financial Services - Royal Commission into banking sector |
absent | Yes |
19th Apr 2016, 6:41 PM – Senate Motions - Financial Services - Establish a Royal Commission |
Yes | Yes |
24th Jun 2015 – Senate Committees — Financial Services |
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.