We can't say anything concrete about how Kim Carr voted on re-approving/ re-registering agvet chemicals
How Kim Carr voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should, in relation to agricultural and veterinary ('agvet') chemicals, implement a mandatory scheme for the re-approval of active constituents and re-registration of chemical products to ensure their ongoing safety
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for re-approving/ re-registering agvet chemicals” which Kim Carr could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Kim Carr on this policy.
| Division | Kim Carr | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
28th Jun 2013, 11:08 AM – Senate Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 - Third Reading - Read a third time |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for re-approving/ re-registering agvet chemicals” which Kim Carr could have attended.
| Division | Kim Carr | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
25th Jun 2014, 12:32 PM – Senate Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014 - Second Reading - Read a second time |
Yes | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Kim Carr 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.