We can't say anything concrete about how Fiona Nash voted on Continuing Detention Orders (CDOs)
How Fiona Nash voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce laws that allow people who have been convicted of certain terrorist offences to be kept in detention even after their custodial sentences have ended if there is an unacceptable risk that they will commit certain serious terrorism offences after being released
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for Continuing Detention Orders (CDOs)” 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 |
|---|---|---|
1st Dec 2016 – Senate Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for Continuing Detention Orders (CDOs)” which Fiona Nash could have attended.
| Division | Fiona Nash | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
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.