We can't say anything concrete about how Zed Seselja voted on a review of our representatives' eligibility
How Zed Seselja voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should conduct a review of our senators and members of parliament (MPs) to make sure that they are all eligible to represent us in Parliament under the Australian Constitution
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for a review of our representatives' eligibility” which Zed Seselja could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Zed Seselja on this policy.
| Division | Zed Seselja | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for a review of our representatives' eligibility” which Zed Seselja could have attended.
| Division | Zed Seselja | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
5th Sep 2017, 5:17 PM – Senate Committees - Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee - Reference |
absent | Yes |
4th Sep 2017, 10:50 AM – Senate Motions - Parliamentary Representation - Qualifications of Senators |
absent | Yes |
15th Aug 2017, 3:53 PM – Senate Committees - Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee - Reference |
absent | Yes |
9th Aug 2017, 4:42 PM – Senate Committees - Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee - Reference |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Zed Seselja 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.