We can't say anything concrete about how John Madigan voted on protecting threatened forest and bushland habitats
How John Madigan voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should protect threatened forest and bushland habitats from logging.
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for protecting threatened forest and bushland habitats” which John Madigan could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of John Madigan on this policy.
| Division | John Madigan | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for protecting threatened forest and bushland habitats” which John Madigan could have attended.
| Division | John Madigan | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
25th Jun 2013, 3:59 PM – Senate Motions - Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area - Prohibit logging |
absent | Yes |
20th Jun 2013, 12:11 PM – Senate Motions - National Parks - Protect |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
John Madigan 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.