We can't say anything concrete about how Nick Sherry voted on implementing refugee and protection conventions
How Nick Sherry voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should implement the international conventions that relate to seeking refuge and protection from torture. These include the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and the non-refoulement provisions of the UN Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for implementing refugee and protection conventions” 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 implementing refugee and protection conventions” which Nick Sherry could have attended.
| Division | Nick Sherry | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
11th Oct 2011 – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - International refugee obligations |
absent | Yes |
17th Jun 2010, 9:47 AM – Senate Motions - World Refugee Day - Concerns about policies |
absent | Yes |
12th May 2010, 3:52 PM – Senate Motions - Suspension of processing Sri Lankan and Afghan asylum claims |
absent | Yes |
3rd Feb 2010, 3:49 PM – Senate Motions - Tamil Asylum Seekers - End standoff |
absent | Yes |
27th Oct 2009, 3:50 PM – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - Language and law |
absent | Yes |
26th Feb 2007, 5:03 PM – Senate Matters of Urgency - Asylum Seekers - Non-refoulment |
Yes | Yes |
20th Jun 2006, 4:05 PM – Senate Motions - World Refugee Day - Refugee Convention |
absent | Yes |
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.