We can't say anything concrete about how James Paterson voted on requiring a warrant to access citizens’ telecommunications records
How James Paterson voted compared to someone who agrees that staff of government agencies should need a warrant before being able to access the telecommunications records of citizens
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for requiring a warrant to access citizens’ telecommunications records” which James Paterson could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of James Paterson on this policy.
| Division | James Paterson | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for requiring a warrant to access citizens’ telecommunications records” which James Paterson could have attended.
| Division | James Paterson | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
15th Aug 2018, 4:06 PM – Senate Motions - Digital Encryption - Warrant and privacy |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
James Paterson 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.