We can't say anything concrete about how Bridget Archer voted on no new fossil fuels projects
How Bridget Archer voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should ban all new fossil fuel projects (oil, gas, coal) (for those votes that relate specifically to new thermal coal mines, see the policy "for banning new thermal coal mines")
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for no new fossil fuels projects” which Bridget Archer could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Bridget Archer on this policy.
| Division | Bridget Archer | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for no new fossil fuels projects” which Bridget Archer could have attended.
| Division | Bridget Archer | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
3rd Aug 2023, 11:39 AM – Representatives Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Not for new fossil fuel projects |
absent | Yes |
3rd Aug 2023, 10:56 AM – Representatives Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Limits on permits to capture & store carbon |
absent | Yes |
29th Mar 2023, 1:07 PM – Representatives Motions - Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Stop Pep11 and Protect Our Coast) Bill 2023 - Consider bill now |
absent | No |
4th Aug 2022, 9:41 AM – Representatives Climate Change Bill 2022, Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 - Second Reading - On new fossil fuel projects |
Yes | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Bridget Archer 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.