We can't say anything concrete about how Mary Doyle voted on considering motions on Gaza (2023-24) (procedural)
How Mary Doyle voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should suspend the usual procedural rules - known as standing orders - that would otherwise prevent our representatives from considering and voting on motions related to the humanitarian disaster in Gaza that began in October 2023 and which is now the subject of an ongoing case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in which South Africa is accusing Israel of genocide
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for considering motions on Gaza (2023-24) (procedural)” which Mary Doyle could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Mary Doyle on this policy.
| Division | Mary Doyle | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for considering motions on Gaza (2023-24) (procedural)” which Mary Doyle could have attended.
| Division | Mary Doyle | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
18th Mar 2024, 12:36 PM – Representatives Motions - Middle East - Let another vote take place |
absent | Yes |
26th Feb 2024, 12:30 PM – Representatives Motions - Middle East: Occupied Palestinian Territories - Let another vote take place |
absent | Yes |
7th Feb 2024, 10:56 AM – Representatives Motions - Middle East - Let another vote take place |
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 Mary Doyle was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.