Compare how John McVeigh and Dave Sharma voted on suspending the rules to allow a vote to happen (procedural)
John McVeigh
Former Liberal Party Representative for Groom July 2016 – September 2020
Dave Sharma
Liberal Party Senator for NSW since November 2023
How they voted compared with each other and 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
Now this is where it gets a bit tricky… Two people might vote the same way on votes they both attended, so their votes are 100% in agreement. They might also have voted in a way we’d describe differently when looking at all of one person's votes. If the other person didn’t or couldn’t have attended those votes we leave those out of the comparison. Because that just wouldn’t be fair now, would it?
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 either John McVeigh or Dave Sharma could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of John McVeigh and Dave Sharma on this policy. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".
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 either John McVeigh or Dave Sharma could have attended. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".
| Division | John McVeigh | Dave Sharma | Supporters vote | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||