We can't say anything concrete about how Scott Ludlam voted on more scrutiny of the Australian Defence Force
How Scott Ludlam voted compared to someone who agrees that there should be more scrutiny or oversight of the actions and powers of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), both within Australia and overseas
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for more scrutiny of the Australian Defence Force” which Scott Ludlam could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Scott Ludlam on this policy.
| Division | Scott Ludlam | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for more scrutiny of the Australian Defence Force” which Scott Ludlam could have attended.
| Division | Scott Ludlam | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
1st Dec 2016, 1:40 PM – Senate Criminal Code Amendment (War Crimes) Bill 2016 - Second Reading - More scrutiny |
absent | Yes |
4th Sep 2014, 12:52 PM – Senate Defence Legislation Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2014 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea |
Yes | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Scott Ludlam 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.