We can't say anything concrete about how James Paterson voted on independent reviews of significant legal changes
How James Paterson 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 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 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 James Paterson could have attended.
| Division | James Paterson | 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 |
absent | Yes |
5th Dec 2019, 4:34 PM – Senate Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Special Operations and Special Investigations) Bill 2019 - Third Reading - Statutory review |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
James Paterson 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.