How James Paterson voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should suspend the usual procedural rules - known as standing orders - that would otherwise prevent our representatives from considering and voting on motions related to the humanitarian disaster in Gaza that began in October 2023 and which is now the subject of an ongoing case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in which South Africa is accusing Israel of genocide

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for considering motions on Gaza (2023-24) (procedural)” which James Paterson could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of James Paterson on this policy.

Division James Paterson Supporters vote
no votes listed

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for considering motions on Gaza (2023-24) (procedural)” which James Paterson could have attended.

Division James Paterson Supporters vote

18th Sep 2024, 11:09 AM – Senate Motions - Middle East: Casualties - Let a vote take place

absent Yes

13th Aug 2024, 12:22 PM – Senate Motions - Middle East - Let a vote on Palestine take place

absent Yes

18th Mar 2024, 10:42 AM – Senate Motions - Middle East - Let another vote happen

absent Yes

27th Feb 2024, 12:24 PM – Senate Motions - Middle East - Let another vote take place

absent Yes

7th Feb 2024, 9:55 AM – Senate Business - Rearrangement - Suspend the rules for a motion on Gaza

absent Yes

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 James Paterson was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.