We can't say anything concrete about how Chris Ellison voted on increasing scrutiny of asylum seeker management
How Chris Ellison 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 Chris Ellison could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Chris Ellison on this policy.
| Division | Chris Ellison | 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 Chris Ellison could have attended.
| Division | Chris Ellison | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
27th Aug 2008, 4:21 PM – Senate Motions - MV Tampa: Seventh Anniversary - Inquiry into immigration detention |
No | Yes |
10th May 2007, 10:17 AM – Senate Motions - Iraq - Information requested |
absent | Yes |
2nd Mar 2006, 11:37 AM – Senate Committees - Legal and Constitutional References Committee - Refer |
absent | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Chris Ellison 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.