We can't say anything concrete about how Meryl Swanson voted on increasing workplace protections
How Meryl Swanson voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase protections for workers by, for example, ensuring there are adequate dispute resolution processes available
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing workplace protections” which Meryl Swanson could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Meryl Swanson on this policy.
| Division | Meryl Swanson | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing workplace protections” which Meryl Swanson could have attended.
| Division | Meryl Swanson | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
6th Feb 2024, 5:22 PM – Representatives Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 - Report from Federation Chamber - Agree with the bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
16th Nov 2023, 9:11 AM – Representatives Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea |
Yes | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Meryl Swanson 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.