We can't say anything concrete about how Ruth Webber voted on more scrutiny of intelligence services & police
How Ruth Webber 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 Ruth Webber could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Ruth Webber on this policy.
| Division | Ruth Webber | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
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 Ruth Webber could have attended.
| Division | Ruth Webber | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
9th Aug 2007, 10:30 AM – Senate Committees - Australia’s Antiterrorism Laws Committee - Establishment |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Ruth Webber 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.