We can't say anything concrete about how Joe Hockey voted on increasing the price of subsidised medicine
How Joe Hockey voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase the amount that patients pay for medicine under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (known as the 'co-payment')
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing the price of subsidised medicine” which Joe Hockey could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Joe Hockey on this policy.
| Division | Joe Hockey | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
16th Jul 2014, 6:36 PM – Representatives National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2014 — Third Reading — Read a third time |
absent | Yes |
16th Jul 2014, 6:05 PM – Representatives National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2014 — Consideration in Detail — Agree to the bill |
absent | Yes |
16th Jul 2014, 4:30 PM – Representatives National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2014 — Second Reading — Read a second time |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing the price of subsidised medicine” which Joe Hockey could have attended.
| Division | Joe Hockey | 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 Joe Hockey was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.