We can't say anything concrete about how David Johnston voted on more scrutiny of intelligence services & police
How David Johnston 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 David Johnston could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of David Johnston on this policy.
Division | David Johnston | Supporters vote |
---|---|---|
25th Sep 2014 – Senate National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 - in Committee - Remove secrecy provisions |
absent | Yes |
24th Sep 2014, 10:53 AM – Senate National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 - Second Reading - Independent oversight of Australia's intelligence services |
absent | Yes |
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 David Johnston could have attended.
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 David Johnston was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.