We can't say anything concrete about how Helen Polley voted on independent reviews of significant legal changes
How Helen Polley voted compared to someone who agrees that when a bill makes a significant change to existing law, the federal government should make sure the bill includes a provision that requires an independent review to take place after a defined period to ensure that the new regime is operating as intended
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for independent reviews of significant legal changes” which Helen Polley could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Helen Polley on this policy.
| Division | Helen Polley | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for independent reviews of significant legal changes” which Helen Polley could have attended.
| Division | Helen Polley | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
15th Jun 2020, 12:44 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2019 and another - in Committee - Independent review |
absent | Yes |
26th Feb 2020, 6:52 PM – Senate Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020 - in Committee - Review |
Yes | Yes |
5th Dec 2019, 4:34 PM – Senate Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Bill 2019 - Third Reading - Statutory review |
absent | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Helen Polley 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.