We can't say anything concrete about how Anthony Chisholm voted on imprisoning immigration detention workers who record or reveal information from their work
How Anthony Chisholm voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should make it an offence punishable by imprisonment for Immigration and Border Protection employees, consultants and contractors to record or disclose information that they obtained while working in Australia's immigration detention centres
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for imprisoning immigration detention workers who record or reveal information from their work” which Anthony Chisholm could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Anthony Chisholm on this policy.
| Division | Anthony Chisholm | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for imprisoning immigration detention workers who record or reveal information from their work” which Anthony Chisholm could have attended.
| Division | Anthony Chisholm | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
16th Oct 2017, 11:11 AM – Senate Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Unauthorised disclosure |
absent | No |
16th Oct 2017, 10:53 AM – Senate Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Section 42 |
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 Anthony Chisholm was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.