We can't say anything concrete about how Bob Carr voted on increasing surveillance powers
How Bob Carr voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce legislation to increase the powers of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to intercept and retain communications related to persons of interest. These agencies include the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP).
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing surveillance powers” which Bob Carr could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Bob Carr on this policy.
| Division | Bob Carr | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
22nd Aug 2012, 12:34 PM – Senate Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 - Third Reading - Pass the bill |
absent | Yes |
22nd Aug 2012, 11:53 AM – Senate Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 - In Committee - Agree to amendments introducing limitations on access and disclosure |
absent | No |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing surveillance powers” which Bob Carr could have attended.
| Division | Bob Carr | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
27th Feb 2013, 4:11 PM – Senate Motions - National Security Inquiry - Abandon plan to retain data for up to two years |
absent | No |
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 Bob Carr was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.