We can't say anything concrete about how Mal Brough voted on extending government benefits to same-sex couples
How Mal Brough voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should extend any financial and work-related entitlements and benefits that currently only apply to heterosexual couples to same-sex couples and their children
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for extending government benefits to same-sex couples” which Mal Brough could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Mal Brough on this policy.
| Division | Mal Brough | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for extending government benefits to same-sex couples” which Mal Brough could have attended.
| Division | Mal Brough | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
13th Aug 2007, 8:29 PM – Representatives Judges’ Pensions Amendment Bill 2007 - Second Reading - Same-sex de facto relationships |
Yes | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Mal Brough 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.