We can't say anything concrete about how Mitch Fifield voted on Preventative Detention Orders (PDOs)
How Mitch Fifield voted compared to someone who agrees that the police should be able to detain people without charge for a limited period if there is a threat of a terrorist attack or if it is likely that vital evidence will be lost after a terrorist attack takes place
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for Preventative Detention Orders (PDOs)” which Mitch Fifield could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Mitch Fifield on this policy.
| Division | Mitch Fifield | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
16th Aug 2018, 11:38 AM – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
28th Oct 2014, 9:10 PM – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014 - In Committee - Extend sunset clauses |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for Preventative Detention Orders (PDOs)” which Mitch Fifield could have attended.
| Division | Mitch Fifield | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
8th Nov 2016, 7:24 PM – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016 - Second Reading - Agree to the bill's main idea |
Yes | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Mitch Fifield 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.