We can't say anything concrete about how Sandy Macdonald voted on protecting threatened forest and bushland habitats
How Sandy Macdonald 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 Sandy Macdonald could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Sandy Macdonald on this policy.
| Division | Sandy Macdonald | 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 Sandy Macdonald could have attended.
| Division | Sandy Macdonald | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
29th Nov 2006, 3:45 PM – Senate Motions - Logging in Tasmania’s Weld River Valley - Halt logging |
No | Yes |
28th Mar 2006, 3:52 PM – Senate Motions - Wedge-Tailed Eagle - Protect habitat |
absent | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Sandy Macdonald 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.