We can't say anything concrete about how Natasha Stott Despoja voted on ending illegal logging
How Natasha Stott Despoja 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 Natasha Stott Despoja could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Natasha Stott Despoja on this policy.
| Division | Natasha Stott Despoja | 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 Natasha Stott Despoja could have attended.
| Division | Natasha Stott Despoja | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
6th Sep 2006, 4:19 PM – Senate Motions - Papua New Guinea: Logging and Human Rights - Take immediate action |
Yes | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Natasha Stott Despoja 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.