We can't say anything concrete about how Catryna Bilyk voted on maintaining or increasing defence spending
How Catryna Bilyk voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should keep up or increase the amount of money it spends on defence
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for maintaining or increasing defence spending” 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 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for maintaining or increasing defence spending” which Catryna Bilyk could have attended.
| Division | Catryna Bilyk | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
9th May 2017, 3:56 PM – Senate Motions - Military Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - Fund diplomatic network and aid |
absent | No |
22nd Mar 2017 – Senate Motions - Defence Expenditure - Redirect |
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.