We can't say anything concrete about how Joe Hockey voted on increasing scrutiny of unions
How Joe Hockey voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase scrutiny of unions and employer organisations by, for example, creating a commission to monitor them and applying the same standards of disclosure to them as to corporations as well as the same penalties for misconduct
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing scrutiny of unions” which Joe Hockey could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Joe Hockey on this policy.
| Division | Joe Hockey | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
12th Dec 2013, 9:14 AM – Representatives Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing scrutiny of unions” which Joe Hockey could have attended.
| Division | Joe Hockey | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
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 Joe Hockey was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.