We can't say anything concrete about how Fiona Nash voted on more scrutiny of the Australian Defence Force
How Fiona Nash voted compared to someone who agrees that there should be more scrutiny or oversight of the actions and powers of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), both within Australia and overseas
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for more scrutiny of the Australian Defence Force” 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 more scrutiny of the Australian Defence Force” which Fiona Nash could have attended.
| Division | Fiona Nash | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
1st Dec 2016, 1:40 PM – Senate Criminal Code Amendment (War Crimes) Bill 2016 - Second Reading - More scrutiny |
absent | Yes |
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 |
absent | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" 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.