We can't say anything concrete about how Jim Molan voted on increasing trade unions' powers in the workplace
How Jim Molan voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce legislation that increases the powers and influence of trade unions in workplace relations
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing trade unions' powers in the workplace” which Jim Molan could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Jim Molan on this policy.
| Division | Jim Molan | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing trade unions' powers in the workplace” which Jim Molan could have attended.
| Division | Jim Molan | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
25th Feb 2020, 4:43 PM – Senate Motions - Workplace Relations - Greyhound Resources |
No | Yes |
12th Nov 2019, 1:22 PM – Senate Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019 - in Committee - Non-registered agreements |
absent | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Jim Molan 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.