We can't say anything concrete about how Christopher Back voted on federal government action on animal & plant extinctions
How Christopher Back voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government needs to support research and conservation initiatives that aim to put a stop to the current trajectory of animal and plant extinctions in Australia
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for federal government action on animal & plant extinctions” which Christopher Back could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Christopher Back on this policy.
| Division | Christopher Back | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for federal government action on animal & plant extinctions” which Christopher Back could have attended.
| Division | Christopher Back | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
14th Sep 2011 – Senate Motions - National Threatened Species Day - Reverse biodiversity decline |
absent | Yes |
8th Sep 2009, 3:44 PM – Senate Motions - National Threatened Species Day - Management plans |
No | Yes |
19th Mar 2009, 9:49 AM – Senate Motions - Protect the Swift Parrot - Deliberate Actions and Recovery Plan |
absent | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Christopher Back 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.