How Fiona Nash voted compared to someone who believes that there should be more scrutiny or oversight of the actions and powers of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), both within Australia and overseas

Division Fiona Nash Supporters vote Division outcome

1st Dec 2016, 1:40 PM – Senate Criminal Code Amendment (War Crimes) Bill 2016 - Second Reading - More scrutiny

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to add certain words (see below) to the original motion to read the bill for a second time (which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill).

This means that the majority of senators rejected this motion, which was introduced by Tasmanian Greens Senator Nick McKim.

Motion text

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate notes, in the context of these proposed amendments, the Australian Defence Force's participation in military operations involving drones or autonomous weapons is currently surrounded in secrecy and calls on the Government, where these operations result in civilian casualties, to publish a monthly report detailing the date, location, target, number of civilian casualties and level of Australian assistance to these operations.".

absent Yes Not passed by a modest majority

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

Show detail

The majority disagreed with this bill's main idea, meaning it will no longer be considered by parliament. The bill sought to:

Amend the: Defence Act 1903 to provide for parliamentary approval of overseas service by members of the Australian Defence Force; and Air Force Act 1923 and Naval Defence Act 1910 to make consequential amendments.

absent Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

How "never voted" is worked out

Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Fiona Nash was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other than that they have "never voted" on this policy.