We can't say anything concrete about how Michaelia Cash voted on targeting foreign interference in Australia
How Michaelia Cash 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 Michaelia Cash could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Michaelia Cash on this policy.
| Division | Michaelia Cash | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
28th Jun 2018, 7:22 PM – Senate Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2018 and another - Third Reading - Pass the bills |
absent | Yes |
28th Jun 2018, 10:21 AM – Senate National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2018 and another - Second Reading - Agree with bills' main idea |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for targeting foreign interference in Australia” which Michaelia Cash could have attended.
| Division | Michaelia Cash | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
4th Dec 2019, 4:09 PM – Senate Committees - Economics References Committee - Reference |
absent | Yes |
15th Aug 2018, 4:01 PM – Senate Motions - Confucius Institute - Foreign influence |
absent | Yes |
28th Jun 2018, 6:20 PM – Senate National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2018 - in Committee - Support the new offence of sabotage |
absent | Yes |
27th Jun 2018, 9:51 AM – Senate National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017 and another - First Reading - Consider bills together |
absent | Yes |
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
Michaelia Cash 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.