Compare how Nick Sherry and Mark Bishop voted on suspending the rules to allow a vote to happen (procedural)
Nick Sherry
Former Australian Labor Party Senator for Tasmania July 1990 – June 2012
Mark Bishop
Former Australian Labor Party Senator for WA July 1996 – June 2014
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 Nick Sherry or Mark Bishop could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Nick Sherry and Mark Bishop 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 "-".
| Division | Nick Sherry | Mark Bishop | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|---|
28th Feb 2013, 3:36 PM – Senate Motions - Suspension of Standing Orders - Let a vote happen |
- | No | Yes |
31st Oct 2011 – Senate Motions - Clean Energy Legislation - Defer consideration |
absent | No | Yes |
26th Nov 2010, 12:31 PM – Senate Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — Third Reading — Suspend standing orders |
No | No | Yes |
26th Nov 2010, 12:19 PM – Senate Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — Third Reading - Suspend standing orders |
No | No | Yes |
26th Nov 2010, 12:03 PM – Senate Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2010 — In Committee - Suspend standing orders |
No | No | Yes |
10th Mar 2010, 11:58 AM – Senate Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009 — Second Reading — Suspend standing orders |
No | No | 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 either Nick Sherry or Mark Bishop 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 | Nick Sherry | Mark Bishop | Supporters vote | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||