We can't say anything concrete about how Arch Bevis voted on the Intervention in the Northern Territory
How Arch Bevis voted compared to someone who agrees that the Federal Government should respond to reports about high levels of child sexual abuse in some Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory by introducing the Northern Territory National Emergency Response or the very similar Stronger Futures Policy, also referred to as "the intervention"
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for the Intervention in the Northern Territory” which Arch Bevis could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Arch Bevis on this policy.
| Division | Arch Bevis | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for the Intervention in the Northern Territory” which Arch Bevis could have attended.
| Division | Arch Bevis | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
2nd Sep 2008, 5:46 PM – Representatives Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008 - Consideration in Detail - Maintain the strength of the Intervention |
No | Yes |
1st Sep 2008, 8:26 PM – Representatives Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Emergency Response Consolidation) Bill 2008 - Second Reading - Ban pornography completely and retain permit system |
absent | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Arch Bevis 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.