We can't say anything concrete about how Pauline Hanson voted on increasing protections for franchisees
How Pauline Hanson voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should amend current laws in order to address the current power disparity between franchisor and franchisee
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing protections for franchisees” which Pauline Hanson could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Pauline Hanson on this policy.
| Division | Pauline Hanson | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
22nd Feb 2021, 12:49 PM – Senate Franchising Laws Amendment (Fairness in Franchising) Bill 2020 - Third Reading - Pass the bill |
absent | Yes |
22nd Feb 2021, 12:41 PM – Senate Franchising Laws Amendment (Fairness in Franchising) Bill 2020 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing protections for franchisees” which Pauline Hanson could have attended.
| Division | Pauline Hanson | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
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 Pauline Hanson was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.