We can't say anything concrete about how Mitch Fifield voted on maintaining or increasing defence spending
How Mitch Fifield voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should keep up or increase the amount of money it spends on defence
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for maintaining or increasing defence spending” 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 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for maintaining or increasing defence spending” which Mitch Fifield could have attended.
| Division | Mitch Fifield | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
9th May 2017, 3:56 PM – Senate Motions - Military Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - Fund diplomatic network and aid |
absent | No |
22nd Mar 2017 – Senate Motions - Defence Expenditure - Redirect |
absent | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" 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 Mitch Fifield was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.