We can't say anything concrete about how Bridget McKenzie voted on climate change inaction
How Bridget McKenzie voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should do nothing to address climate change
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for climate change inaction” 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 climate change inaction” which Bridget McKenzie could have attended.
| Division | Bridget McKenzie | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
1st Aug 2023, 4:12 PM – Senate Matters of Urgency - Climate Change - "Fearmongering" |
absent | Yes |
9th Aug 2017, 4:48 PM – Senate Committees - Early Retirement of Coal-Fired Power Stations - Don't do |
Yes | 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.