We can't say anything concrete about how Fiona Nash voted on protecting Australian sovereignty in trade agreements
How Fiona Nash voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should ensure that Australian sovereignty always comes first when signing trade agreements so that the government can protect Australian interests (including its workforce and industries) without risking legal action from foreign investors under provisions such as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for protecting Australian sovereignty in trade agreements” 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 protecting Australian sovereignty in trade agreements” which Fiona Nash could have attended.
| Division | Fiona Nash | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
19th Apr 2016, 7:29 PM – Senate Motions - Steel Industry - Support local industry |
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.