We can't say anything concrete about how Fiona Nash voted on funding the national school chaplaincy program
How Fiona Nash voted compared to someone who agrees that The federal government should continue to fund the National School Chaplaincy Program (NSCP) to fund chaplains in Australian primary and secondary schools
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for funding the national school chaplaincy program” 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 funding the national school chaplaincy program” which Fiona Nash could have attended.
| Division | Fiona Nash | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
26th Jun 2014, 12:51 PM – Senate Motions - Youth Mental Health - Redirect chaplaincy funding to qualified mental health workers |
absent | No |
27th Jun 2012, 6:22 PM – Senate Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2012 - Second Reading - Replace chaplaincy with counselling |
absent | No |
25th Nov 2009, 4:25 PM – Senate Motions - National School Chaplaincy Program - Continue program |
Yes | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Fiona Nash has only voted once on this policy and it wasn't on a "strong" vote. So it's not possible to draw a clear conclusion about their position.
This could be because there were simply not many relevant divisions (formal votes) during the time they've been in parliament (most votes happen on "the voices", so we simply have no decent record) or they were absent for votes that could have contributed to their voting record.