We can't say anything concrete about how Penny Wong voted on greater public scrutiny of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations
How Penny Wong voted compared to someone who agrees that the Australian Government should publicly release more information about the contents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal and its position in the negotiations
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for greater public scrutiny of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations” which Penny Wong could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Penny Wong on this policy.
| Division | Penny Wong | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for greater public scrutiny of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations” which Penny Wong could have attended.
| Division | Penny Wong | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
13th Oct 2015, 4:02 PM – Senate Motions — Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement |
absent | Yes |
26th Mar 2015, 1:26 PM – Senate Motions - Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement - Undertake a cost benefit analysis |
absent | Yes |
11th Feb 2015, 3:50 PM – Senate Motions — Request for more transparency in Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. |
Yes | Yes |
29th Oct 2014 – Senate Motions - Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement - Give members of Parliament access to the draft text |
absent | Yes |
23rd Nov 2011 – Senate Motions — Trans-Pacific Partnership |
absent | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Penny Wong 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.