How Annette Hurley 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 Annette Hurley could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Annette Hurley on this policy.

Division Annette Hurley Supporters vote

26th Nov 2010, 12:31 PM – Senate Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — Third Reading — Suspend standing orders

absent Yes

26th Nov 2010, 12:19 PM – Senate Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — Third Reading - Suspend standing orders

absent Yes

26th Nov 2010, 12:03 PM – Senate Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — In Committee - Suspend standing orders

absent Yes

10th Mar 2010, 11:58 AM – Senate Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 — Second Reading — Suspend standing orders

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 Annette Hurley could have attended.

Division Annette Hurley 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 Annette Hurley was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.