Compare how Meryl Swanson and Kate Chaney voted on increasing legal protections for LGBTI people
Meryl Swanson
Australian Labor Party Representative for Paterson since July 2016
Kate Chaney
Independent Representative for Curtin since May 2022
How they voted compared with each other and someone who agrees that the federal government should increase legal protections for people who identify as LGBTI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex) by, for example, getting rid of all current exemptions that permit discrimination against LGBTI people by religious insitutions (such as schools)
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 legal protections for LGBTI people” which either Meryl Swanson or Kate Chaney could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Meryl Swanson and Kate Chaney 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 | Meryl Swanson | Kate Chaney | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|---|
9th Feb 2022, 3:53 AM – Representatives Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 - Third Reading - Pass the bill |
absent | - | No |
9th Feb 2022, 2:20 AM – Representatives Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 - Consideration in Detail - Statements of belief |
No | - | No |
9th Feb 2022, 1:20 AM – Representatives Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea |
Yes | - | No |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing legal protections for LGBTI people” which either Meryl Swanson or Kate Chaney 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 "-".