How Michael Sukkar voted compared to someone who agrees that asylum seekers who arrive in Australia without a visa, particularly those who arrive by boat, should have their asylum claims processed regionally in a country such as the Republic of Nauru or Papua New Guinea (See the policy "For offshore processing of asylum seekers" for more on processing asylum seeker claims in Australian territories like Christmas Island)

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for regional processing of asylum seekers” which Michael Sukkar could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Michael Sukkar on this policy.

Division Michael Sukkar Supporters vote
no votes listed

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for regional processing of asylum seekers” which Michael Sukkar could have attended.

Division Michael Sukkar Supporters vote

4th Dec 2014 – Representatives Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 - Consideration of Senate Message - Agree with Senate's amendments

absent Yes

22nd Oct 2014, 5:12 PM – Representatives Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea

Yes Yes

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

Michael Sukkar 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.