We can't say anything concrete about how Michael Ronaldson voted on ending immigration detention on Manus Island
How Michael Ronaldson 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 Michael Ronaldson could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Michael Ronaldson on this policy.
Division | Michael Ronaldson | 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 Michael Ronaldson could have attended.
Division | Michael Ronaldson | Supporters vote |
---|---|---|
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 |
Yes | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Michael Ronaldson 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.