We can't say anything concrete about how Lisa Chesters voted on increasing consumer protections
How Lisa Chesters voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce legislation that increases consumer protections by, for example, encouraging competition
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing consumer protections” which Lisa Chesters could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Lisa Chesters on this policy.
| Division | Lisa Chesters | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing consumer protections” which Lisa Chesters could have attended.
| Division | Lisa Chesters | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
4th Aug 2021, 12:07 PM – Representatives Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response - Better Advice) Bill 2021 - Second Reading - Disagree with amendments |
absent | No |
27th Nov 2019, 12:16 PM – Representatives Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Bill 2019 - Consideration in Detail - Director ID numbers |
absent | Yes |
15th Oct 2019, 6:36 PM – Representatives Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019 - Consideration in Detail - Restrict fintech sandbox exemption |
Yes | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Lisa Chesters 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.