We can't say anything concrete about how Mark Dreyfus voted on climate change mitigation strategies (e.g., carbon capture and storage)
How Mark Dreyfus voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should encourage climate mitigation strategies, including carbon capture and storage (CCS) and marine geoengineering
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for climate change mitigation strategies (e.g., carbon capture and storage)” which Mark Dreyfus could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Mark Dreyfus on this policy.
| Division | Mark Dreyfus | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
3rd Aug 2023, 11:48 AM – Representatives Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Agree with the bill |
absent | Yes |
3rd Aug 2023, 10:16 AM – Representatives Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for climate change mitigation strategies (e.g., carbon capture and storage)” which Mark Dreyfus could have attended.
| Division | Mark Dreyfus | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
9th Sep 2024, 1:09 PM – Representatives Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 - Consideration in Detail - National Interest Framework |
absent | No |
7th Dec 2023, 11:40 AM – Representatives Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 - Consideration of Senate Message - Unconventional gas production or carbon sequestration |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Mark Dreyfus 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.