We can't say anything concrete about how Brett Mason voted on a review of parliamentary entitlements
How Brett Mason voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should set up a review of parliamentary entitlements and allowances, including legitimate expenditure, salary packages, superannuation entitlements and other allowances
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for a review of parliamentary entitlements” which Brett Mason could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Brett Mason on this policy.
| Division | Brett Mason | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for a review of parliamentary entitlements” which Brett Mason could have attended.
| Division | Brett Mason | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
16th Jun 2009, 4:17 PM – Senate Motions - Parliamentarians' Entitlements - Independent Parliamentary Standards Commissioner |
absent | Yes |
6th Sep 2006, 4:01 PM – Senate Motions - Parliamentarians’ Entitlements - Review of remuneration and entitlements |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Brett Mason 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.