How John Faulkner voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should maintain and strengthen gun control laws and make sure they're the same around Australia

Division John Faulkner Supporters vote Division outcome

21st Jun 2012, 12:14 PM – Senate Motions - Gun Control - Stregthen uniformity

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion, which means it was unsuccessful.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) uniform gun laws were introduced across all states and territories following the ground-breaking work undertaken by the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre,

(ii) the New South Wales Government has sponsored a two-day ‘Shot Expo’ that promotes guns, knives and pistols, in conjunction with firearm manufacturers, including Beretta, a weapons supplier to the former Gaddafi regime, and

(iii) the New South Wales Government has given its support to a longstanding Shooter and Fishers Party plan to allow recreational hunting with firearms in designated New South Wales national parks;

(b) condemns the New South Wales Government’s plans to allow recreational hunting with firearms in its national parks; and

(c) calls on:

(i) the Federal Government to support the adoption of a global arms trade treaty at the United Nations, and

(ii) the Attorney-General (Ms Roxon) to take the steps required to strengthen uniformity of Australian gun laws.

absent Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

How "never voted" 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 John Faulkner was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other than that they have "never voted" on this policy.