We can't say anything concrete about how Amanda Vanstone voted on encouraging Australian-based industry
How Amanda Vanstone voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should encourage Australian-based industry and secure the jobs these industries create by, for example, providing incentives for companies to stay in Australia (note that there are specific policies in respect to the timber, dairy, shipping, coal, and film & TV industries, which means that votes specific to those subjects are not included here)
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for encouraging Australian-based industry” which Amanda Vanstone could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Amanda Vanstone on this policy.
| Division | Amanda Vanstone | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for encouraging Australian-based industry” which Amanda Vanstone could have attended.
| Division | Amanda Vanstone | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
6th Sep 2006, 4:14 PM – Senate Motions — Tasmanian Forestry Industry — Campaigns against Tasmanian forestry industry + Illegal timber imports |
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 Amanda Vanstone was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.