We can't say anything concrete about how Jim Chalmers voted on increasing transparency of public appointments
How Jim Chalmers voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should ensure that public appointments are made through a transparent and independent process to address concerns about a "jobs for mates" culture in Australian politics
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing transparency of public appointments” which Jim Chalmers could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Jim Chalmers on this policy.
| Division | Jim Chalmers | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing transparency of public appointments” which Jim Chalmers could have attended.
| Division | Jim Chalmers | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
24th May 2023, 12:08 PM – Representatives Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Appointments |
absent | No |
11th May 2023, 5:40 PM – Representatives Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Independent selection process |
Yes | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Jim Chalmers has only voted once on this policy and it wasn't on a "strong" vote. So it's not possible to draw a clear conclusion about their position.
This could be because there were simply not many relevant divisions (formal votes) during the time they've been in parliament (most votes happen on "the voices", so we simply have no decent record) or they were absent for votes that could have contributed to their voting record.