We can't say anything concrete about how Catryna Bilyk voted on imprisoning immigration detention workers who record or reveal information from their work
How Catryna Bilyk voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should make it an offence punishable by imprisonment for Immigration and Border Protection employees, consultants and contractors to record or disclose information that they obtained while working in Australia's immigration detention centres
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for imprisoning immigration detention workers who record or reveal information from their work” which Catryna Bilyk could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Catryna Bilyk on this policy.
| Division | Catryna Bilyk | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
14th May 2015, 3:43 PM – Senate Australian Border Force Bill 2015 and related bill - Third Reading - Pass the bill |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for imprisoning immigration detention workers who record or reveal information from their work” which Catryna Bilyk could have attended.
| Division | Catryna Bilyk | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
16th Oct 2017, 11:11 AM – Senate Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Unauthorised disclosure |
absent | No |
16th Oct 2017, 10:53 AM – Senate Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Section 42 |
absent | No |
14th May 2015, 1:58 PM – Senate Australian Border Force Bill 2015 and related bill - in Committee - Public interest amendment |
No | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Catryna Bilyk 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.