We can't say anything concrete about how Anika Wells voted on regional processing of asylum seekers
How Anika Wells voted compared to someone who agrees that asylum seekers who arrive in Australia without a visa, particularly those who arrive by boat, should have their asylum claims processed regionally in a country such as the Republic of Nauru or Papua New Guinea (See the policy "For offshore processing of asylum seekers" for more on processing asylum seeker claims in Australian territories like Christmas Island)
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for regional processing of asylum seekers” which Anika Wells could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Anika Wells on this policy.
| Division | Anika Wells | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for regional processing of asylum seekers” which Anika Wells could have attended.
| Division | Anika Wells | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
7th Feb 2023, 5:55 PM – Representatives Regulations and Determinations - Instrument of Designation of the Republic of Nauru as a Regional Processing Country |
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 Anika Wells was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.