Compare how Bob Baldwin and Scott Buchholz voted on increasing transparency of big business by making information public
Bob Baldwin
Former Liberal Party Representative for Paterson November 2001 – May 2016
Scott Buchholz
Liberal Party Representative for Wright since August 2010
How they voted compared with each other and 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
Now this is where it gets a bit tricky… Two people might vote the same way on votes they both attended, so their votes are 100% in agreement. They might also have voted in a way we’d describe differently when looking at all of one person's votes. If the other person didn’t or couldn’t have attended those votes we leave those out of the comparison. Because that just wouldn’t be fair now, would it?
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 either Bob Baldwin or Scott Buchholz could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Bob Baldwin and Scott Buchholz on this policy. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".
| Division | Bob Baldwin | Scott Buchholz | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|---|
4th Aug 2022, 4:25 PM – Representatives Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 - Consideration of Senate Message - Agree with amendments and so pass bill |
- | No | Yes |
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 either Bob Baldwin or Scott Buchholz could have attended. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".