We can't say anything concrete about how Mitch Fifield voted on legalising pepper spray
How Mitch Fifield voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should legalise the importation of pepper spray and encourage state governments to legalise carrying pepper spray - especially by women - to deter and defend against attacks
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for legalising pepper spray” 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 legalising pepper spray” which Mitch Fifield could have attended.
| Division | Mitch Fifield | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
13th Feb 2019, 4:38 PM – Senate Motions - Prevention of Violence Against Women - Pepper spray |
No | Yes |
28th Jun 2018, 12:13 PM – Senate Motions - Prevention of Violence Against Women - Pepper spray, mace and tasers |
absent | 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.