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

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.