We can't say anything concrete about how David Bushby voted on increasing parliamentary entitlements for current MPs and Senators
How David Bushby voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal governmnet should increase parliamentary entitlements for current MPs and Senators, such as legitimate expenditure, salary packages, superannuation entitlements and/or other allowances like the printing allowance
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing parliamentary entitlements for current MPs and Senators” which David Bushby could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of David Bushby on this policy.
| Division | David Bushby | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing parliamentary entitlements for current MPs and Senators” which David Bushby could have attended.
| Division | David Bushby | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
21st Mar 2017, 4:08 PM – Senate Motions - Parliamentarians' Entitlements - Do not increase remuneration until in surplus |
No | No |
14th May 2009, 10:34 AM – Senate Motions - Remuneration Tribunal Determination - Electorate allowance |
absent | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
David Bushby 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.