We can't say anything concrete about how Zed Seselja voted on ending illegal logging
How Zed Seselja voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce legislation to end illegal logging and prevent the importation of timber that has been illegally harvested.
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for ending illegal logging” 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 ending illegal logging” which Zed Seselja could have attended.
| Division | Zed Seselja | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
11th Sep 2019, 3:52 PM – Senate Motions - New South Wales - Land clearing amnesty |
absent | Yes |
8th Feb 2018, 4:13 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Due Diligence Improvements) Regulations 2017 - Disallow |
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.