We can't say anything concrete about how Chris Ellison voted on ending illegal logging
How Chris Ellison voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce legislation to end illegal logging and prevent the importation of timber that has been illegally harvested.
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for ending illegal logging” which Chris Ellison could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Chris Ellison on this policy.
| Division | Chris Ellison | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for ending illegal logging” which Chris Ellison could have attended.
| Division | Chris Ellison | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
6th Sep 2006, 4:19 PM – Senate Motions - Papua New Guinea: Logging and Human Rights - Take immediate action |
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 Chris Ellison was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.