We can't say anything concrete about how Sharon Claydon voted on political intervention in research funding grants
How Sharon Claydon voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should be able to intervene in the research grant process with the Australian Research Council (ARC) by, for example, vetoing certain grant application where considered appropriate
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for political intervention in research funding grants” which Sharon Claydon could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Sharon Claydon on this policy.
| Division | Sharon Claydon | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for political intervention in research funding grants” which Sharon Claydon could have attended.
| Division | Sharon Claydon | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
26th Nov 2019, 5:12 PM – Representatives Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2019 - Consideration in Detail - Anouncement process |
absent | No |
26th Nov 2019, 4:51 PM – Representatives Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2019 - Second Reading - Research cuts |
absent | No |
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 Sharon Claydon was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.