Compare how Joe Bullock and Alex Gallacher voted on increasing transparency of big business by making information public
Joe Bullock
Former Australian Labor Party Senator for WA July 2014 – April 2016
Alex Gallacher
Former Australian Labor Party Senator for SA July 2011 – August 2021
How they voted compared with each other and someone who agrees that the federal govenment should increase transparency in big business (that is, companies with an income equal or more than $100 million/year or, alternatively, $200 million/year) by making certain information public, including their total income and how much tax they paid
Now this is where it gets a bit tricky… Two people might vote the same way on votes they both attended, so their votes are 100% in agreement. They might also have voted in a way we’d describe differently when looking at all of one person's votes. If the other person didn’t or couldn’t have attended those votes we leave those out of the comparison. Because that just wouldn’t be fair now, would it?
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing transparency of big business by making information public” which either Joe Bullock or Alex Gallacher could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Joe Bullock and Alex Gallacher on this policy. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".
| Division | Joe Bullock | Alex Gallacher | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|---|
9th Aug 2021, 8:45 PM – Senate Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 - in Committee - Get rid of exemption to scrutiny |
- | absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing transparency of big business by making information public” which either Joe Bullock or Alex Gallacher could have attended. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".