We can't say anything concrete about how Anne Ruston voted on revoking citizenship of dual nationals involved with terrorism offences by the minister
How Anne Ruston voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should give the immigration minister the power to revoke the citizenship of people who have dual nationality (that is, are also citizens of another country) if they take part in certain terrorism-related offences [NOTE: following a High Court decision that ruled that the Minister did not have the power to revoke citizenship in this manner, there is now a new policy titled "Revoking citizenship of dual nationals involved with terrorism offences by the courts", which involves giving the citizenship-revoking power to the courts rather than the Minister themself]
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for revoking citizenship of dual nationals involved with terrorism offences by the minister” which Anne Ruston could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Anne Ruston on this policy.
| Division | Anne Ruston | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
1st Dec 2015, 9:01 PM – Senate Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for revoking citizenship of dual nationals involved with terrorism offences by the minister” which Anne Ruston could have attended.
| Division | Anne Ruston | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
3rd Sep 2020, 4:22 PM – Senate Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2020 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea |
Yes | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Anne Ruston 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.