We can't say anything concrete about how Anthony Chisholm voted on banning politicial deepfakes
How Anthony Chisholm voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce laws to ban the use of deepfakes in political advertising in the lead up to elections
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for banning politicial deepfakes” 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 banning politicial deepfakes” which Anthony Chisholm could have attended.
| Division | Anthony Chisholm | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
21st Aug 2024, 10:47 AM – Senate Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 - Second Reading - Ban political deepfakes |
absent | Yes |
21st Aug 2024, 10:44 AM – Senate Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 - Second Reading - Ban politicial deepfakes |
absent | Yes |
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.