We can't say anything concrete about how Sue Boyce voted on Australia's timber industry
How Sue Boyce voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should protect Australia's logging industry and the jobs it represents
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for Australia's timber industry” which Sue Boyce could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Sue Boyce on this policy.
| Division | Sue Boyce | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for Australia's timber industry” which Sue Boyce could have attended.
| Division | Sue Boyce | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
25th Jun 2013, 3:59 PM – Senate Motions - Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area - Prohibit logging |
No | No |
20th Jun 2013, 12:11 PM – Senate Motions - National Parks - Protect |
absent | No |
11th May 2010, 4:22 PM – Senate Motions - Environment: Millewa Forest - Stop logging |
absent | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Sue Boyce 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.