We can't say anything concrete about how Chris Bowen voted on more scrutiny of intelligence services & police
How Chris Bowen 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 Chris Bowen could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Chris Bowen on this policy.
| Division | Chris Bowen | 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 Chris Bowen could have attended.
| Division | Chris Bowen | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
10th Dec 2020, 10:57 AM – Representatives Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020 - Consideration in Detail - The 'Howard safeguard' |
No | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Chris Bowen 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.