We can't say anything concrete about how Amanda Vanstone voted on uranium export
How Amanda Vanstone voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should support the exportation of uranium from Australia
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for uranium export” 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 uranium export” which Amanda Vanstone could have attended.
| Division | Amanda Vanstone | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
27th Feb 2007, 4:04 PM – Senate Motions - Nuclear Proliferation - Block US-India deal at NSG meeting and rule out supply of uranium to India |
absent | No |
27th Feb 2007, 3:43 PM – Senate Motions — Nuclear Weapons — No exporting to non—NPT parties, support support non—proliferation |
absent | No |
10th Oct 2006, 3:42 PM – Senate Motions — Nuclear Nonproliferation — Against Australia becoming a nuclear fuel supply centre and against sale of uranium to India |
absent | No |
14th Sep 2006, 9:59 AM – Senate Motions — Nuclear Tests at Maralinga — For non—proliferation and against export to non—Treaty states |
absent | No |
10th May 2006, 3:56 PM – Senate Motions - Uranium Exports - Oppose export to China |
absent | No |
28th Mar 2006, 3:58 PM – Senate Motions - Uranium Exports - No export to India |
No | No |
28th Feb 2006, 3:46 PM – Senate Motions - Nuclear Non—Proliferation Treaty - Against uranium export to non-Treaty states |
absent | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Amanda Vanstone 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.