We can't say anything concrete about how Fiona Nash voted on using natural resource wealth for the benefit of all Australians
How Fiona Nash voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should use the wealth generated by mining for the benefit of Australian citizens, as encouraged by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) Principles
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for using natural resource wealth for the benefit of all Australians” 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 using natural resource wealth for the benefit of all Australians” which Fiona Nash could have attended.
| Division | Fiona Nash | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
25th Mar 2014, 1:51 PM – Senate Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 - Second Reading - Share mining boom benefits |
No | Yes |
22nd Mar 2012, 1:29 PM – Senate Motions - Mining - Use Queensland mining wealth to benefit all Queenslanders |
absent | 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.