We can't say anything concrete about how Zed Seselja voted on a national redress scheme for institutional abuse survivors
How Zed Seselja voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should create and coordinate a National Redress Scheme for Survivors of Institutional Sexual Abuse, which was recommended by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for a national redress scheme for institutional abuse survivors” 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 national redress scheme for institutional abuse survivors” which Zed Seselja could have attended.
| Division | Zed Seselja | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
15th Sep 2016, 12:50 PM – Senate Motions - National Redress Scheme for Survivors of Institutional Sexual Abuse - Create and consult |
absent | Yes |
14th Sep 2016, 4:01 PM – Senate Motions - Child Sexual Abuse - National redress scheme |
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.