Compare how James Stevens and Pat Conaghan voted on increasing consumer protections

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 consumer protections” which either James Stevens or Pat Conaghan could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of James Stevens and Pat Conaghan 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	James Stevens	Pat Conaghan	Supporters vote
no votes listed

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing consumer protections” which either James Stevens or Pat Conaghan 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 "-".

Division	James Stevens	Pat Conaghan	Supporters vote
4th Aug 2021, 12:07 PM – Representatives Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response - Better Advice) Bill 2021 - Second Reading - Disagree with amendments	absent	Yes	No
27th Nov 2019, 12:16 PM – Representatives Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Bill 2019 - Consideration in Detail - Director ID numbers	No	No	Yes
15th Oct 2019, 6:36 PM – Representatives Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019 - Consideration in Detail - Restrict fintech sandbox exemption	No	No	Yes