We can't say anything concrete about how Steve Hutchins voted on encouraging Australian-based industry
How Steve Hutchins voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should encourage Australian-based industry and secure the jobs these industries create by, for example, providing incentives for companies to stay in Australia (note that there are specific policies in respect to the timber, dairy, shipping, coal, and film & TV industries, which means that votes specific to those subjects are not included here)
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for encouraging Australian-based industry” which Steve Hutchins could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Steve Hutchins on this policy.
| Division | Steve Hutchins | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for encouraging Australian-based industry” which Steve Hutchins could have attended.
| Division | Steve Hutchins | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
6th Sep 2006, 4:14 PM – Senate Motions — Tasmanian Forestry Industry — Campaigns against Tasmanian forestry industry + Illegal timber imports |
Yes | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Steve Hutchins 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.