We can't say anything concrete about how Ed Husic voted on protecting Australian sovereignty in trade agreements
How Ed Husic voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should ensure that Australian sovereignty always comes first when signing trade agreements so that the government can protect Australian interests (including its workforce and industries) without risking legal action from foreign investors under provisions such as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for protecting Australian sovereignty in trade agreements” which Ed Husic could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Ed Husic on this policy.
| Division | Ed Husic | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
21st Oct 2019, 5:50 PM – Representatives Customs Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019 - Consideration in Detail - ISDS clauses |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for protecting Australian sovereignty in trade agreements” which Ed Husic could have attended.
| Division | Ed Husic | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
21st Oct 2019, 5:21 PM – Representatives Customs Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019 and another - Second Reading - Protect Australian industry |
Yes | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Ed Husic 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.