We can't say anything concrete about how Joe Hockey voted on increasing scrutiny of asylum seeker management
How Joe Hockey voted compared to someone who agrees that there should be more independent access to detention centres and more information provided about the management of asylum seekers under Australian government policy, including the interception of boats at sea
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing scrutiny of asylum seeker management” which Joe Hockey could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Joe Hockey on this policy.
| Division | Joe Hockey | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
4th Dec 2014 – Representatives Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 - Consideration of Senate Message - Agree with Senate's amendments |
absent | No |
22nd Oct 2014, 5:12 PM – Representatives Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea |
absent | No |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing scrutiny of asylum seeker management” which Joe Hockey could have attended.
| Division | Joe Hockey | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
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 Joe Hockey was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.