We can't say anything concrete about how Dan Repacholi voted on protecting threatened forest and bushland habitats
How Dan Repacholi 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 Dan Repacholi could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Dan Repacholi on this policy.
| Division | Dan Repacholi | 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 Dan Repacholi could have attended.
| Division | Dan Repacholi | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
29th May 2024, 10:44 AM – Representatives Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 - Report from Federation Chamber - End native forest logging |
absent | Yes |
9th Mar 2023, 9:40 AM – Representatives National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2022 - Consideration in Detail - Prohibited investments |
Yes | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Dan Repacholi 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.