We can't say anything concrete about how Mitch Fifield voted on banning all investment in cluster munitions
How Mitch Fifield voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should ban both direct and indirect (e.g. through parent companies) investment in cluster munitions
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for banning all investment in cluster munitions” 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 |
|---|---|---|
21st Aug 2012, 1:44 PM – Senate Criminal Code Amendment (Cluster Munitions Prohibition) Bill 2010 - In Committee - Ban investment |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for banning all investment in cluster munitions” which Mitch Fifield could have attended.
| Division | Mitch Fifield | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
12th May 2011 – Senate Motions - Cluster Bombs - Extend prohibitions |
No | 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.