We can't say anything concrete about how Zed Seselja voted on pill testing
How Zed Seselja voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should develop and implement a pill testing policy to reduce the risk of death and/or injury caused by taking illicit drugs
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for pill testing” 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 pill testing” which Zed Seselja could have attended.
| Division | Zed Seselja | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
13th Feb 2019, 4:16 PM – Senate Motions - Illicit Drugs - Pill testing |
absent | Yes |
5th Sep 2017, 5:24 PM – Senate Motions - International Overdose Awareness Day - Address harms of drug use |
absent | Yes |
13th Feb 2017, 4:05 PM – Senate Motions - Illicit Drugs - Pill testing |
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.