We can't say anything concrete about how Cathy McGowan voted on increasing protection of Australia's fresh water
How Cathy McGowan voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce legislation that increases the protection of Australia's fresh water resources, including its river and groundwater systems
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing protection of Australia's fresh water” which Cathy McGowan could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Cathy McGowan on this policy.
| Division | Cathy McGowan | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing protection of Australia's fresh water” which Cathy McGowan could have attended.
| Division | Cathy McGowan | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
16th Jun 2014, 8:07 PM – Representatives Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 - Second Reading - Read a second time |
Yes | No |
9th Dec 2013, 8:35 PM – Representatives Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 - Consideration in Detail - Keep power to make major environmental approvals with federal minister |
absent | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Cathy McGowan 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.