We can't say anything concrete about how Penny Wong voted on ending illegal logging
How Penny Wong 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 Penny Wong could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Penny Wong on this policy.
| Division | Penny Wong | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
19th Nov 2012, 8:42 PM – Senate Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill 2012 - Third Reading - Pass the bill |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for ending illegal logging” which Penny Wong could have attended.
| Division | Penny Wong | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
9th Sep 2024, 1:00 PM – Senate Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 - in Committee - Supplying illegally logged timber |
absent | Yes |
11th Sep 2019, 3:52 PM – Senate Motions - New South Wales - Land clearing amnesty |
absent | Yes |
8th Feb 2018, 4:13 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Due Diligence Improvements) Regulations 2017 - Disallow |
absent | Yes |
15th Aug 2012, 3:56 PM – Senate Motions - Forestry - Westpac and logging on the Solomon Islands |
absent | Yes |
6th Sep 2006, 4:19 PM – Senate Motions - Papua New Guinea: Logging and Human Rights - Take immediate action |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Penny Wong 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.