Compare how Kate Lundy and David Feeney voted on increasing restrictions on gambling

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 restrictions on gambling” which either Kate Lundy or David Feeney could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Kate Lundy and David Feeney 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	Kate Lundy	David Feeney	Supporters vote
no votes listed

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing restrictions on gambling” which either Kate Lundy or David Feeney 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 "-".

Division	Kate Lundy	David Feeney	Supporters vote
8th Feb 2017, 5:11 PM – Representatives Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016 - Second Reading - Phase out ads relating to betting or gambling	-	Yes	Yes
22nd Sep 2014, 6:08 PM – Senate Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014 - in Committee - Interactive Gambling Act and ACMA	absent	-	No
5th Mar 2014, 12:27 PM – Senate Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 — In Committee — Keep schedule 1 (on gambling) unchanged	Yes	-	No
9th Feb 2012, 12:55 PM – Senate Documents — Gambling; Order for the Production of Documents	No	No	Yes