Compare how Anthony Chisholm and Zed Seselja voted on creating a federal Anti-Corruption Commission
Anthony Chisholm
Australian Labor Party Senator for Queensland since July 2016
Zed Seselja
Former Liberal Party Senator for ACT September 2013 – May 2022
How they voted compared with each other and someone who agrees that the federal government should create a national integrity commission similar to the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) to detect, investigate and prevent corruption across all Commonwealth departments and agencies
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 creating a federal Anti-Corruption Commission” which either Anthony Chisholm or Zed Seselja could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Anthony Chisholm and Zed Seselja 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 | Anthony Chisholm | Zed Seselja | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|---|
9th Sep 2019, 11:50 AM – Senate National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2) - Third Reading - Pass the bill |
Yes | No | Yes |
9th Sep 2019, 11:41 AM – Senate National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2) - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea |
Yes | No | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for creating a federal Anti-Corruption Commission” which either Anthony Chisholm or Zed Seselja 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 "-".