We can't say anything concrete about how Barbara Pocock voted on political intervention in research funding grants
How Barbara Pocock voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should be able to intervene in the research grant process with the Australian Research Council (ARC) by, for example, vetoing certain grant application where considered appropriate
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for political intervention in research funding grants” which Barbara Pocock could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Barbara Pocock on this policy.
| Division | Barbara Pocock | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for political intervention in research funding grants” which Barbara Pocock could have attended.
| Division | Barbara Pocock | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
18th Mar 2024, 2:57 PM – Senate Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 - in Committee - Removing international relations veto |
absent | No |
18th Mar 2024, 2:34 PM – Senate Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 - in Committee - Designated research programs |
absent | Yes |
18th Mar 2024, 2:30 PM – Senate Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023 - in Committee - Designated research programs |
absent | No |
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 Barbara Pocock was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.