We can't say anything concrete about how Scott Buchholz voted on increasing transparency of public funds
How Scott Buchholz voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase the transparency of public funds by increasing reporting requirements on bodies that spend them and making these publicly available (through, for example, the publication of audits and annual reviews)
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing transparency of public funds” which Scott Buchholz could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Scott Buchholz on this policy.
| Division | Scott Buchholz | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing transparency of public funds” which Scott Buchholz could have attended.
| Division | Scott Buchholz | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
24th May 2023, 11:45 AM – Representatives Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Transparency |
absent | No |
24th May 2023, 11:15 AM – Representatives Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Community and transparency |
absent | No |
24th May 2023, 10:20 AM – Representatives Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Publication requirement + Post-completion cost data |
absent | No |
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 Scott Buchholz was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.