We can't say anything concrete about how James Paterson voted on criminalising wage theft
How James Paterson 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 James Paterson could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of James Paterson on this policy.
| Division | James Paterson | 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 James Paterson could have attended.
| Division | James Paterson | 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 James Paterson was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.