We can't say anything concrete about how David Johnston voted on increasing restrictions on gambling
How David Johnston voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase restrictions on the gambling industry in order to address the issue of problem gambling
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing restrictions on gambling” which David Johnston could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of David Johnston on this policy.
| Division | David Johnston | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing restrictions on gambling” which David Johnston could have attended.
| Division | David Johnston | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
22nd Sep 2014, 6:08 PM – Senate Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 - in Committee - Interactive Gambling Act and ACMA |
absent | No |
5th Mar 2014, 12:27 PM – Senate Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 — In Committee — Keep schedule 1 (on gambling) unchanged |
absent | No |
9th Feb 2012, 12:55 PM – Senate Documents — Gambling; Order for the Production of Documents |
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 David Johnston was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.