Compare how Nova Peris and Glenn Sterle voted on increasing marine conservation
Nova Peris
Former Australian Labor Party Senator for NT September 2013 – May 2016
Glenn Sterle
Australian Labor Party Senator for WA since July 2005
How they voted compared with each other and someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce legislation and regulations that protect and conserve Australia's marine ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef
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 increasing marine conservation” which either Nova Peris or Glenn Sterle could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Nova Peris and Glenn Sterle 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 | Nova Peris | Glenn Sterle | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|---|
16th Aug 2018, 4:14 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Marine Parks Network Management Plans - Disallow |
- | Yes | Yes |
16th Aug 2018, 4:10 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Marine Parks Network Management Plan - Disallow |
- | Yes | Yes |
12th Feb 2015, 1:38 PM – Senate Bills – Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 – in Committee – Amendment: extend protections to all threatened species |
absent | No | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing marine conservation” which either Nova Peris or Glenn Sterle 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 "-".