Compare how Tanya Plibersek and Arch Bevis voted on stem cell research

Now this is where it gets a bit tricky… Two people might vote the same way on votes they both attended, so their votes are 100% in agreement. They might also have voted in a way we’d describe differently when looking at all of one person's votes. If the other person didn’t or couldn’t have attended those votes we leave those out of the comparison. Because that just wouldn’t be fair now, would it?

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for stem cell research” which either Tanya Plibersek or Arch Bevis could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Tanya Plibersek and Arch Bevis on this policy. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".

Division	Tanya Plibersek	Arch Bevis	Supporters vote
6th Dec 2006, 6:17 PM – Representatives Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 - Second Reading - Read a second time	Yes	Yes	Yes

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for stem cell research” which either Tanya Plibersek or Arch Bevis could have attended. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".

Division	Tanya Plibersek	Arch Bevis	Supporters vote
6th Dec 2006, 7:29 PM – Representatives Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 - Consideration in Detail - Offence of using precursor cells	No	No	No