We can't say anything concrete about how Mary Fisher voted on increasing surveillance powers
How Mary Fisher 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 Mary Fisher could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Mary Fisher on this policy.
| Division | Mary Fisher | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing surveillance powers” which Mary Fisher could have attended.
| Division | Mary Fisher | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
2nd Mar 2011, 12:30 PM – Senate Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 — In Committee - ASIO's annual report (access to information) |
absent | No |
20th Sep 2007, 7:53 PM – Senate Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2007 — In Committee — Require judicial warrants |
No | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Mary Fisher 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.