Compare how Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and Nick McKim voted on ending immigration detention on Nauru
Concetta Fierravanti-Wells
Former Liberal Party Senator for NSW May 2005 – May 2022
Nick McKim
Australian Greens Senator for Tasmania since August 2015
How they voted compared with each other and 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
Now this is where it gets a bit tricky… Two people might vote the same way on votes they both attended, so their votes are 100% in agreement. They might also have voted in a way we’d describe differently when looking at all of one person's votes. If the other person didn’t or couldn’t have attended those votes we leave those out of the comparison. Because that just wouldn’t be fair now, would it?
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for ending immigration detention on Nauru” which either Concetta Fierravanti-Wells or Nick McKim could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and Nick McKim on this policy. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".
| Division | Concetta Fierravanti-Wells | Nick McKim | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|---|
7th Feb 2023, 5:15 PM – Senate Motions - Instrument of Designation of the Republic of Nauru as a Regional Processing Country |
- | No | No |
25th Jun 2015, 5:02 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015 - in Committee - Detention of children |
absent | - | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for ending immigration detention on Nauru” which either Concetta Fierravanti-Wells or Nick McKim could have attended. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".