How Zed Seselja voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should issue instructions for border protection forces to turn back boats carrying asylum seekers to Australia where it is safe to do so

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for turning back asylum boats when possible” 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

4th Dec 2014, 8:58 PM – Senate Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea

absent Yes

4th Dec 2014, 12:15 AM – Senate Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

absent Yes

4th Dec 2014, 12:11 AM – Senate Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 - in Committee - Agree with the amended bill

absent Yes

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for turning back asylum boats when possible” which Zed Seselja could have attended.

Division Zed Seselja Supporters vote

29th Mar 2017 – Senate Motions - Asylum Seekers - End detention on Nauru and Manus Island

No No

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.