We can't say anything concrete about how Sue Boyce voted on protecting whales within Australian waters
How Sue Boyce voted compared to someone who agrees that the Federal Government should protect whales within Australian waters by, for example, taking action against the Japanese Government over its whaling program in the Southern Ocean
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for protecting whales within Australian waters” 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 protecting whales within Australian waters” which Sue Boyce could have attended.
| Division | Sue Boyce | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
28th Feb 2013, 12:16 PM – Senate Motions - Whaling - Seek explanation for non-compliance with injunction |
absent | Yes |
21st Nov 2012, 4:00 PM – Senate Motions - Seismic Survey - Harm to marine wildlife |
No | Yes |
13th May 2010, 10:13 AM – Senate Motions - Petroleum Exploration - Protect marine wildlife of Margaret River coastline |
absent | Yes |
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.