We can't say anything concrete about how Peta Murphy voted on increasing protection of Australia's fresh water
How Peta Murphy voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce legislation that increases the protection of Australia's fresh water resources, including its river and groundwater systems
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing protection of Australia's fresh water” which Peta Murphy could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Peta Murphy on this policy.
| Division | Peta Murphy | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing protection of Australia's fresh water” which Peta Murphy could have attended.
| Division | Peta Murphy | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
7th Dec 2023, 11:45 AM – Representatives Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 - Consideration of Senate Message - Agree with the Senate amendments |
absent | Yes |
18th Oct 2023, 12:18 PM – Representatives Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Agree with bill as amended |
Yes | Yes |
18th Oct 2023, 10:12 AM – Representatives Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Peta Murphy 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.