We can't say anything concrete about how James Paterson voted on targeting inequality
How James Paterson voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government needs to research, develop and implement a nation-wide strategy for addressing inequality in the Australian community
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for targeting inequality” which James Paterson could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of James Paterson on this policy.
| Division | James Paterson | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
12th Nov 2018, 11:13 AM – Senate Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017 - Third Reading - Pass the bill |
absent | Yes |
12th Nov 2018, 11:09 AM – Senate Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for targeting inequality” which James Paterson could have attended.
| Division | James Paterson | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case James Paterson was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.