We can't say anything concrete about how Harry Jenkins voted on increasing consumer protections
How Harry Jenkins voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce legislation that increases consumer protections by, for example, encouraging competition
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing consumer protections” which Harry Jenkins could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Harry Jenkins on this policy.
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing consumer protections” which Harry Jenkins could have attended.
| Division | Harry Jenkins | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
16th Nov 2010, 8:12 PM – Representatives Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — Consideration in Detail - Merit review and procedural fairness |
absent | No |
16th Nov 2010, 6:29 PM – Representatives Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — Consideration in Detail — Disallowance of instruments and competition |
absent | No |
16th Nov 2010, 5:33 PM – Representatives Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — Consideration in Detail — Disallowable instruments to limit Telstra |
absent | No |
5th Jun 2008, 5:36 PM – Representatives National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008 — Second Reading — Keep motion to read a second time unchanged |
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 Harry Jenkins was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.