We can't say anything concrete about how Scott Ludlam voted on privatising certain government services
How Scott Ludlam voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should give the private sector control over running and managing some of its services (such as public welfare, aged care and visa services) by either outsourcing or privatisation
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for privatising certain government services” which Scott Ludlam could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Scott Ludlam on this policy.
| Division | Scott Ludlam | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for privatising certain government services” which Scott Ludlam could have attended.
| Division | Scott Ludlam | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
13th Oct 2016, 1:57 PM – Senate National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016 and another - in Committee - Protection of private data |
Yes | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Scott Ludlam 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.