We can't say anything concrete about how Michaelia Cash voted on a national redress scheme for institutional abuse survivors
How Michaelia Cash voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should create and coordinate a National Redress Scheme for Survivors of Institutional Sexual Abuse, which was recommended by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for a national redress scheme for institutional abuse survivors” which Michaelia Cash could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Michaelia Cash on this policy.
| Division | Michaelia Cash | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for a national redress scheme for institutional abuse survivors” which Michaelia Cash could have attended.
| Division | Michaelia Cash | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
15th Sep 2016, 12:50 PM – Senate Motions - National Redress Scheme for Survivors of Institutional Sexual Abuse - Create and consult |
absent | Yes |
14th Sep 2016, 4:01 PM – Senate Motions - Child Sexual Abuse - National redress scheme |
absent | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Michaelia Cash was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.