We can't say anything concrete about how Peta Murphy voted on market-led approaches to protecting biodiversity
How Peta Murphy voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should address the destruction of Australia's biodiversity by commodifying the protection of natural environments (e.g., issuing certificates or credits for biodiversity protection that can then be sold on the market)
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for market-led approaches to protecting biodiversity” which Peta Murphy could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Peta Murphy on this policy.
| Division | Peta Murphy | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
21st Jun 2023, 5:13 PM – Representatives Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and another - Second Reading - Agree with the bills' main idea |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for market-led approaches to protecting biodiversity” which Peta Murphy could have attended.
| Division | Peta Murphy | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
7th Dec 2023, 11:45 AM – Representatives Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 - Consideration of Senate Message - Agree with the Senate amendments |
absent | Yes |
7th Dec 2023, 10:35 AM – Representatives Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 - Consideration of Senate Message - Agree with Senate amendments |
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 Peta Murphy was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.