We can't say anything concrete about how Helen Polley voted on criminalising wage theft
How Helen Polley voted compared to someone who agrees that Employers should be able to be criminally prosecuted for intentionally stealing the wages of their employees.
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for criminalising wage theft” which Helen Polley could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Helen Polley on this policy.
| Division | Helen Polley | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
7th Dec 2023, 12:32 PM – Senate Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 - Third Reading - Pass the bill |
absent | Yes |
7th Dec 2023, 12:24 PM – Senate Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 - 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 criminalising wage theft” which Helen Polley could have attended.
| Division | Helen Polley | 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 Helen Polley was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.