We can't say anything concrete about how Alan Ferguson voted on more scrutiny of intelligence services & police
How Alan Ferguson voted compared to someone who agrees that there should be more scrutiny or oversight of the actions and powers of Australian intelligence and law enforcement agencies, including the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), the 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 more scrutiny of intelligence services & police” which Alan Ferguson could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Alan Ferguson on this policy.
| Division | Alan Ferguson | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
13th Nov 2008, 12:58 PM – Senate Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Laws Bill 2008 [No. 2] - Second Reading - Read a second time |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for more scrutiny of intelligence services & police” which Alan Ferguson could have attended.
| Division | Alan Ferguson | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
9th Aug 2007, 10:30 AM – Senate Committees - Australia’s Antiterrorism Laws Committee - Establishment |
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 Alan Ferguson was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.