We can't say anything concrete about how Andrew Bartlett voted on local community consultation on infrastructure projects
How Andrew Bartlett voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should always consult with local communities that may be affected by infrastructure projects, especially for major infrastructure projects such as dams, pulp mills or nuclear facilities
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for local community consultation on infrastructure projects” which Andrew Bartlett could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Andrew Bartlett on this policy.
| Division | Andrew Bartlett | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
17th Sep 2007, 8:14 PM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007 - In Committee - Major infrastructure projects |
absent | Yes |
17th Sep 2007, 7:49 PM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007 - In Committee - Nuclear sites |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for local community consultation on infrastructure projects” which Andrew Bartlett could have attended.
| Division | Andrew Bartlett | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
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 Andrew Bartlett was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.