Compare how James Paterson and Paul Scarr voted on procedural fairness
James Paterson
Liberal Party Senator for Victoria since March 2016
Paul Scarr
Liberal Party Senator for Queensland since July 2019
How they voted compared with each other and someone who agrees that all Australian laws should be subject to procedural fairness requirements so that people can request reasons for government decisions that impact them personally and can appeal those decisions on the basis of whether they were made lawfully
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 procedural fairness” which either James Paterson or Paul Scarr could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of James Paterson and Paul Scarr 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 Paterson | Paul Scarr | Supporters vote | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for procedural fairness” which either James Paterson or Paul Scarr 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 "-".