We can't say anything concrete about how Stephen Parry voted on targeting foreign interference in Australia
How Stephen Parry voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should address the issue of foreign interference in Australia by, for example, introducing new offences against acts such as sabotage, treason and espionage
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for targeting foreign interference in Australia” which Stephen Parry could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Stephen Parry on this policy.
| Division | Stephen Parry | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for targeting foreign interference in Australia” which Stephen Parry could have attended.
| Division | Stephen Parry | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
14th Jun 2017, 4:26 PM – Senate Motions - Influence of Foreign Agents - Royal Commission |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Stephen Parry 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.