We can't say anything concrete about how Mathias Cormann voted on increasing scrutiny of unions
How Mathias Cormann voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase scrutiny of unions and employer organisations by, for example, creating a commission to monitor them and applying the same standards of disclosure to them as to corporations as well as the same penalties for misconduct
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing scrutiny of unions” which Mathias Cormann could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Mathias Cormann on this policy.
| Division | Mathias Cormann | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
17th Aug 2015, 9:44 PM – Senate Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 2] - Second Reading - Agree to the bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
2nd Mar 2015, 6:01 PM – Senate Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 - Second Reading - Agree to bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
14th May 2014, 11:15 AM – Senate Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013 - Second Reading - Agree to the bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing scrutiny of unions” which Mathias Cormann could have attended.
| Division | Mathias Cormann | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
20th Aug 2012, 3:54 PM – Senate Motions - Health Services Union - Greater penalties for misconduct |
Yes | Yes |
18th Jun 2012, 4:23 PM – Senate Motions - Registered Organisations - Accountability & transparency |
absent | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Mathias Cormann 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.