We can't say anything concrete about how Nick Sherry voted on offshore processing for people seeking asylum in Australia
How Nick Sherry voted compared to someone who agrees that people seeking asylum in Australia, who arrive without a visa and particularly those who arrive by boat, should be held offshore in an Australian territory like Christmas Island while their application is processed (See the policy "For regional processing of asylum seekers" for more on processing asylum claims in other countries, like Nauru)
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for offshore processing for people seeking asylum in Australia” which Nick Sherry could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Nick Sherry on this policy.
| Division | Nick Sherry | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for offshore processing for people seeking asylum in Australia” which Nick Sherry could have attended.
| Division | Nick Sherry | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
25th Aug 2011 – Senate Motions - Immigration: MV Tampa - End offshore processing |
absent | No |
25th Nov 2009, 4:05 PM – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - Stop excising territory |
No | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Nick Sherry 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.