We can't say anything concrete about how Robert McClelland voted on increasing restrictions on gambling
How Robert McClelland voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase restrictions on the gambling industry in order to address the issue of problem gambling
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing restrictions on gambling” which Robert McClelland could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Robert McClelland on this policy.
| Division | Robert McClelland | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing restrictions on gambling” which Robert McClelland could have attended.
| Division | Robert McClelland | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
29th Nov 2012, 1:55 PM – Representatives National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 - Consideration in Detail - Agree to the bill |
absent | Yes |
29th Nov 2012, 1:24 PM – Representatives National Gambling Reform Bill 2012 — Second Reading — Read a second time |
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 Robert McClelland was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.