We can't say anything concrete about how Michael Ronaldson voted on live animal export
How Michael Ronaldson voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should allow live animal export and place minimal restrictions on it
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for live animal export” which Michael Ronaldson could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Michael Ronaldson on this policy.
| Division | Michael Ronaldson | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
19th Jun 2014 – Senate Regulations and Determinations — Australian Meat and Live—stock Industry (Export of Live—stock to Egypt) Repeal Order 2014 — Disallow motion |
absent | No |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for live animal export” which Michael Ronaldson could have attended.
| Division | Michael Ronaldson | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
13th Oct 2015, 4:12 PM – Senate Motions - Live Animal Exports - Approve Port Alma as a live cattle export facility |
absent | Yes |
12th Dec 2013, 12:32 PM – Senate Motions - Live Animal Exports - Stop export until investigations completed |
absent | No |
15th May 2013, 3:53 PM – Senate Motions - Live Animal Exports - Establish Office of Animal Welfare |
absent | No |
13th Mar 2012 – Senate Motions - Live Animal Exports - Against live animal export |
absent | No |
7th Jul 2011 – Senate Motions - Live Animal Exports - End live animal export |
absent | No |
15th Jun 2011 – Senate Motions — Live Animal Exports — Move to re—establish live export with Indonesia |
Yes | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Michael Ronaldson 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.