We can't say anything concrete about how Anna Burke voted on increasing transparency of big business by making information public
How Anna Burke voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal govenment should increase transparency in big business (that is, companies with an income equal or more than $100 million/year or, alternatively, $200 million/year) by making certain information public, including their total income and how much tax they paid
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing transparency of big business by making information public” which Anna Burke could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Anna Burke on this policy.
| Division | Anna Burke | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing transparency of big business by making information public” which Anna Burke could have attended.
| Division | Anna Burke | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
12th Nov 2015, 11:24 AM – Representatives Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015 - Consideration of Senate Message - Disagree with the Senate's amendments |
No | No |
14th Sep 2015, 6:08 PM – Representatives Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Better Targeting the Income Tax Transparency Laws) Bill 2015 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea |
absent | No |
14th Sep 2015, 6:00 PM – Representatives Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Better Targeting the Income Tax Transparency Laws) Bill 2015 - Second Reading - Against the bill |
absent | Yes |
6th Jun 2013, 11:46 AM – Representatives Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013 - Consideration in Detail - Reject transparency provisions |
absent | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Anna Burke 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.