We can't say anything concrete about how Nita Green voted on increasing scrutiny of asylum seeker management
How Nita Green voted compared to someone who agrees that there should be more independent access to detention centres and more information provided about the management of asylum seekers under Australian government policy, including the interception of boats at sea
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing scrutiny of asylum seeker management” which Nita Green could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Nita Green on this policy.
| Division | Nita Green | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing scrutiny of asylum seeker management” which Nita Green could have attended.
| Division | Nita Green | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
13th May 2021, 1:46 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Bill 2021 - Third Reading - Pass the bill |
absent | No |
13th May 2021, 1:35 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Bill 2021 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea |
absent | No |
11th Nov 2019, 5:07 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Migration (Fast Track Applicant Class – Temporary Protection and Safe Haven Enterprise Visas) Instrument 2019 - Disallow |
Yes | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Nita Green 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.