We can't say anything concrete about how Mary Fisher voted on protecting threatened forest and bushland habitats
How Mary Fisher voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should protect threatened forest and bushland habitats from logging.
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for protecting threatened forest and bushland habitats” which Mary Fisher could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Mary Fisher on this policy.
| Division | Mary Fisher | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for protecting threatened forest and bushland habitats” which Mary Fisher could have attended.
| Division | Mary Fisher | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
11th May 2010, 4:22 PM – Senate Motions - Environment: Millewa Forest - Stop logging |
absent | Yes |
19th Mar 2009, 9:49 AM – Senate Motions - Protect the Swift Parrot - Deliberate Actions and Recovery Plan |
absent | Yes |
4th Dec 2008, 10:39 AM – Senate Motions - Koala Habitat - Protect Bermagui habitat |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Mary Fisher 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.