We can't say anything concrete about how Mark Furner voted on a review of parliamentary entitlements
How Mark Furner 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 Mark Furner could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Mark Furner on this policy.
| Division | Mark Furner | 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 Mark Furner could have attended.
| Division | Mark Furner | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
16th Jun 2009, 4:17 PM – Senate Motions - Parliamentarians' Entitlements - Independent Parliamentary Standards Commissioner |
absent | Yes |
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 Mark Furner was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.