Compare how Paul Scarr and Mitch Fifield voted on increasing protection of Australia's fresh water
Paul Scarr
Liberal Party Senator for Queensland since July 2019
Mitch Fifield
Former Liberal Party Senator for Victoria March 2004 – September 2019
How they voted compared with each other and someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce legislation that increases the protection of Australia's fresh water resources, including its river and groundwater systems
Now this is where it gets a bit tricky… Two people might vote the same way on votes they both attended, so their votes are 100% in agreement. They might also have voted in a way we’d describe differently when looking at all of one person's votes. If the other person didn’t or couldn’t have attended those votes we leave those out of the comparison. Because that just wouldn’t be fair now, would it?
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing protection of Australia's fresh water” which either Paul Scarr or Mitch Fifield could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Paul Scarr and Mitch Fifield on this policy. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".
| Division | Paul Scarr | Mitch Fifield | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|---|
5th Dec 2023, 8:34 PM – Senate Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 and another - in Committee - Expanding the water trigger |
absent | - | Yes |
19th Jun 2013, 11:09 AM – Senate Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 - In Committee - Report the bill |
- | No | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing protection of Australia's fresh water” which either Paul Scarr or Mitch Fifield could have attended. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".