We can't say anything concrete about how Natasha Griggs voted on ending immigration detention on Nauru
How Natasha Griggs voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should close its Nauru Regional Processing Centre and stop all Nauru-based processing of people's claims for asylum
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for ending immigration detention on Nauru” which Natasha Griggs could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Natasha Griggs on this policy.
| Division | Natasha Griggs | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for ending immigration detention on Nauru” which Natasha Griggs could have attended.
| Division | Natasha Griggs | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
27th Nov 2012, 8:18 PM – Representatives Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Read a second time |
absent | No |
28th Oct 2010, 9:38 AM – Representatives Private Members’ Business - Asylum Seekers - Re-introduce Coalition policies |
Yes | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Natasha Griggs 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.