We can't say anything concrete about how Matt Burnell voted on considering motions on Gaza (2023-24) (procedural)
How Matt Burnell 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 Matt Burnell could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Matt Burnell on this policy.
| Division | Matt Burnell | 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 Matt Burnell could have attended.
| Division | Matt Burnell | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
18th Mar 2024, 12:36 PM – Representatives Motions - Middle East - Let another vote take place |
absent | Yes |
26th Feb 2024, 12:30 PM – Representatives Motions - Middle East: Occupied Palestinian Territories - Let another vote take place |
absent | Yes |
7th Feb 2024, 10:56 AM – Representatives Motions - Middle East - Let another vote take place |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Matt Burnell 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.