We can't say anything concrete about how Anika Wells voted on more scrutiny of intelligence services & police
How Anika Wells 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 Anika Wells could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Anika Wells on this policy.
| Division | Anika Wells | 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 Anika Wells could have attended.
| Division | Anika Wells | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
10th Dec 2020, 10:57 AM – Representatives Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020 - Consideration in Detail - The 'Howard safeguard' |
absent | No |
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 Anika Wells was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.