We can't say anything concrete about how Rebekha Sharkie voted on more scrutiny of intelligence services & police
How Rebekha Sharkie 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 Rebekha Sharkie could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Rebekha Sharkie on this policy.
| Division | Rebekha Sharkie | 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 Rebekha Sharkie could have attended.
| Division | Rebekha Sharkie | 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 Rebekha Sharkie was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.