We can't say anything concrete about how Peter Georgiou voted on protecting threatened forest and bushland habitats
How Peter Georgiou voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should protect threatened forest and bushland habitats from logging.
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for protecting threatened forest and bushland habitats” which Peter Georgiou could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Peter Georgiou on this policy.
| Division | Peter Georgiou | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for protecting threatened forest and bushland habitats” which Peter Georgiou could have attended.
| Division | Peter Georgiou | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
6th Dec 2018, 12:42 PM – Senate Motions - Halls Island - Make full assessment on World Heritage values |
absent | Yes |
4th Dec 2018, 4:50 PM – Senate Motions - United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity - Heed recommendations |
absent | Yes |
14th Feb 2018, 4:22 PM – Senate Motions - Tasmania: Environment - Tarkine |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Peter Georgiou 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.