We can't say anything concrete about how Fraser Anning voted on political intervention in research funding grants
How Fraser Anning voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should be able to intervene in the research grant process with the Australian Research Council (ARC) by, for example, vetoing certain grant application where considered appropriate
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for political intervention in research funding grants” which Fraser Anning could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Fraser Anning on this policy.
| Division | Fraser Anning | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for political intervention in research funding grants” which Fraser Anning could have attended.
| Division | Fraser Anning | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
4th Dec 2018, 4:37 PM – Senate Motions - Australian Research Council - Remove National Interest Test |
No | No |
13th Nov 2018, 3:52 PM – Senate Documents - Australian Research Council - Order for the Production of Documents |
absent | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Fraser Anning 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.