We can't say anything concrete about how Bridget McKenzie voted on repealing Stage 3 tax cuts
How Bridget McKenzie voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should abandon the planned Stage 3 tax cuts which are due to take effect from July 2024
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for repealing Stage 3 tax cuts” which Bridget McKenzie could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Bridget McKenzie on this policy.
| Division | Bridget McKenzie | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for repealing Stage 3 tax cuts” which Bridget McKenzie could have attended.
| Division | Bridget McKenzie | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
27th Feb 2024, 6:50 PM – Senate Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024 and Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living — Medicare Levy) Bill 2024 - Second Reading - Criticism of Government |
absent | No |
27th Mar 2023, 5:16 PM – Senate Matters of Urgency - Pensions and Benefits - Scrap stage 3 tax cuts and fund other measures |
absent | Yes |
8th Mar 2023, 5:42 PM – Senate Matters of Urgency - Gender Equality - Stage 3 cuts |
absent | Yes |
8th Feb 2023, 6:19 PM – Senate Matters of Urgency - Income Tax - Reaffirm commitment to tax cuts |
Yes | No |
7th Feb 2023, 12:59 PM – Senate Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 5) Bill 2022 - Second Reading - Abandon Stage 3 tax cuts |
absent | Yes |
26th Oct 2022, 10:46 AM – Senate Supply Bill (No. 3) 2022-2023, Supply Bill (No. 4) 2022-2023 and another - Second Reading - Repeal stage 3 tax cuts |
absent | Yes |
7th Sep 2022, 5:34 PM – Senate Matters of Urgency - Taxation - Stage 3 tax cuts |
absent | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Bridget McKenzie 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.