We can't say anything concrete about how Jan McLucas voted on putting welfare payments onto cashless debit cards (or indue cards) on a temporary basis as a trial
How Jan McLucas voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should create a time-limited trial of putting a large proportion of a person's welfare payment onto a debit card that cannot be used for alcohol or gambling and cannot be used to make cash withdrawals (see the policy "For putting welfare payments onto cashless debit cards (or indue cards) on an ongoing basis" for votes on extending the program indefinitely)
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for putting welfare payments onto cashless debit cards (or indue cards) on a temporary basis as a trial” which Jan McLucas could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Jan McLucas on this policy.
| Division | Jan McLucas | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
14th Oct 2015, 6:02 PM – Senate Bills — Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015; Third Reading |
absent | Yes |
14th Oct 2015, 10:08 AM – Senate Bills — Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015; Second Reading |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for putting welfare payments onto cashless debit cards (or indue cards) on a temporary basis as a trial” which Jan McLucas could have attended.
| Division | Jan McLucas | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
23rd Feb 2016, 6:36 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations — Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area – Ceduna and Surrounding Region) Determination 2015; Disallowance |
No | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Jan McLucas 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.