We can't say anything concrete about how Nick Sherry voted on investing in climate science
How Nick Sherry voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should invest in climate science to ensure that Australia is best equipped to deal with the challenges of climate change
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for investing in climate science” which Nick Sherry could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Nick Sherry on this policy.
| Division | Nick Sherry | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for investing in climate science” which Nick Sherry could have attended.
| Division | Nick Sherry | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
14th Feb 2008, 10:22 AM – Senate Motions - Climate Change - Reverse decision to cut funding |
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 Nick Sherry was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.