We can't say anything concrete about how Amanda Vanstone voted on ending illegal logging
How Amanda Vanstone voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce legislation to end illegal logging and prevent the importation of timber that has been illegally harvested.
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for ending illegal logging” 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 ending illegal logging” which Amanda Vanstone could have attended.
| Division | Amanda Vanstone | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
6th Sep 2006, 4:19 PM – Senate Motions - Papua New Guinea: Logging and Human Rights - Take immediate action |
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.