We can't say anything concrete about how Chris Evans voted on increasing scrutiny of unions
How Chris Evans voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase scrutiny of unions and employer organisations by, for example, creating a commission to monitor them and applying the same standards of disclosure to them as to corporations as well as the same penalties for misconduct
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing scrutiny of unions” which Chris Evans could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Chris Evans on this policy.
| Division | Chris Evans | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing scrutiny of unions” which Chris Evans could have attended.
| Division | Chris Evans | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
20th Aug 2012, 3:54 PM – Senate Motions - Health Services Union - Greater penalties for misconduct |
absent | Yes |
18th Jun 2012, 4:23 PM – Senate Motions - Registered Organisations - Accountability & transparency |
absent | Yes |
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 Chris Evans was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.