How Fiona Nash voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase restrictions on the gambling industry in order to address the issue of problem gambling

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing restrictions on gambling” which Fiona Nash could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Fiona Nash on this policy.

Division Fiona Nash Supporters vote
no votes listed

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing restrictions on gambling” which Fiona Nash could have attended.

Division Fiona Nash Supporters vote

29th Mar 2017, 4:24 PM – Senate Motions - Gambling - Apply the National Consumer Protection Framework

absent Yes

12th Sep 2016, 3:59 PM – Senate Motions - Gambling - Against gambling advertising

No Yes

22nd Sep 2014, 6:08 PM – Senate Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 - in Committee - Interactive Gambling Act and ACMA

absent No

5th Mar 2014, 12:27 PM – Senate Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 — In Committee — Keep schedule 1 (on gambling) unchanged

absent No

9th Feb 2012, 12:55 PM – Senate Documents — Gambling; Order for the Production of Documents

absent Yes

How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out

Fiona Nash 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.