We can't say anything concrete about how James Paterson voted on acknowledging the Government's role in foreign conflicts
How James Paterson voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should acknowledge the role it has played in any foreign conflicts which caused loss of life and were not directly for the defense of Australia or its people
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for acknowledging the Government's role in foreign conflicts” which James Paterson could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of James Paterson on this policy.
| Division | James Paterson | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
11th Sep 2023, 4:23 PM – Senate Documents - Australian Secret Intelligence Service - Order for the Production of Documents |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for acknowledging the Government's role in foreign conflicts” which James Paterson could have attended.
| Division | James Paterson | 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 James Paterson was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.