We can't say anything concrete about how Christopher Back voted on an emissions reduction fund
How Christopher Back voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce an emissions reduction fund so it can buy domestic greenhouse gas emissions reductions and offsets by reverse auction. This is a key part of the Coalition Government's Direct Action policy.
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for an emissions reduction fund” which Christopher Back could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Christopher Back on this policy.
| Division | Christopher Back | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
30th Oct 2014, 9:04 PM – Senate Carbon Farming Initiative Amendment Bill 2014 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for an emissions reduction fund” which Christopher Back could have attended.
| Division | Christopher Back | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
30th Oct 2014, 9:01 PM – Senate Carbon Farming Initiative Amendment Bill 2014 - Second Reading - Criticise the Direct Action policy |
absent | No |
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 Christopher Back was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.