Compare how Doug Cameron and David Feeney voted on the Intervention in the Northern Territory
Doug Cameron
Former Australian Labor Party Senator for NSW July 2008 – July 2019
David Feeney
Former Australian Labor Party Representative for Batman September 2013 – February 2018
How they voted compared with each other and someone who agrees that the Federal Government should respond to reports about high levels of child sexual abuse in some Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory by introducing the Northern Territory National Emergency Response or the very similar Stronger Futures Policy, also referred to as "the intervention"
Now this is where it gets a bit tricky… Two people might vote the same way on votes they both attended, so their votes are 100% in agreement. They might also have voted in a way we’d describe differently when looking at all of one person's votes. If the other person didn’t or couldn’t have attended those votes we leave those out of the comparison. Because that just wouldn’t be fair now, would it?
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for the Intervention in the Northern Territory” which either Doug Cameron or David Feeney could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Doug Cameron and David Feeney on this policy. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".
| Division | Doug Cameron | David Feeney | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|---|
28th Jun 2012, 2:13 AM – Senate Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011 - Third Reading - Pass the bill |
Yes | absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for the Intervention in the Northern Territory” which either Doug Cameron or David Feeney could have attended. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".