We can't say anything concrete about how Amanda Vanstone voted on increasing scrutiny of asylum seeker management
How Amanda Vanstone 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 Amanda Vanstone could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Amanda Vanstone on this policy.
| Division | Amanda Vanstone | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
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 Amanda Vanstone could have attended.
| Division | Amanda Vanstone | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
2nd Mar 2006, 11:37 AM – Senate Committees - Legal and Constitutional References Committee - Refer |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Amanda Vanstone 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.