How Nigel Scullion voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should close its Manus Regional Processing Centre and stop all Manus-based processing of people's claims for asylum

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for ending immigration detention on Manus Island” which Nigel Scullion could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Nigel Scullion on this policy.

Division Nigel Scullion Supporters vote
no votes listed

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for ending immigration detention on Manus Island” which Nigel Scullion could have attended.

Division Nigel Scullion Supporters vote

15th Feb 2018, 11:56 AM – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - End offshore detention

No Yes

20th Jun 2017, 4:00 PM – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - Close Nauru and Manus Is. detention centres

absent Yes

25th Jun 2015, 6:15 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Regional Processing Arrangements) Bill 2015 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

absent No

16th May 2013, 12:15 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - Third Reading - Read a third time

absent No

16th May 2013, 10:42 AM – Senate Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Read a second time

absent No

10th Oct 2012, 11:34 AM – Senate Motions - Manus Island - Designate PNG as regional processing country

absent No

16th Aug 2012, 10:21 PM – Senate Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - Third Reading - Read a third time

absent No

16th Aug 2012, 5:22 PM – Senate Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Read a second time

absent No

How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out

Nigel Scullion 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.