We can't say anything concrete about how Peter Andren voted on suspending the rules to allow a vote to happen (procedural)
How Peter Andren voted compared to someone who agrees that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Senators should vote to suspend standing and sessional orders (that is, the procedural rules of Parliament) so that their colleagues can introduce motions for Parliament to vote on even when the the procedural rules would prevent them from doing so
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for suspending the rules to allow a vote to happen (procedural)” which Peter Andren could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Peter Andren on this policy.
| Division | Peter Andren | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
8th Aug 2007, 9:15 AM – Representatives Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Legislation - Let a vote happen |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for suspending the rules to allow a vote to happen (procedural)” which Peter Andren could have attended.
| Division | Peter Andren | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
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 Peter Andren was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.