We can't say anything concrete about how Jana Stewart voted on increasing legal protections for LGBTI people
How Jana Stewart voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase legal protections for people who identify as LGBTI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex) by, for example, getting rid of all current exemptions that permit discrimination against LGBTI people by religious insitutions (such as schools)
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing legal protections for LGBTI people” which Jana Stewart could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Jana Stewart on this policy.
| Division | Jana Stewart | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing legal protections for LGBTI people” which Jana Stewart could have attended.
| Division | Jana Stewart | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
9th Mar 2023, 10:16 AM – Senate Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 - Second Reading - Giving blood |
absent | Yes |
27th Oct 2022, 1:27 PM – Senate Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022 - in Committee - Human Rights Commissioner for LGBTIQA+ people |
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 Jana Stewart was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.