We can't say anything concrete about how George Christensen voted on protecting Australian sovereignty in trade agreements
How George Christensen 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 George Christensen could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of George Christensen on this policy.
| Division | George Christensen | 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 George Christensen could have attended.
| Division | George Christensen | 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 |
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 George Christensen was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.