We can't say anything concrete about how Jan McLucas voted on giving approval for mining in the Liverpool Plains
How Jan McLucas voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should give approval for new mines in the Liverpool Plains, such as the Shenhua Watermark coal mine
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for giving approval for mining in the Liverpool Plains” 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 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for giving approval for mining in the Liverpool Plains” which Jan McLucas could have attended.
| Division | Jan McLucas | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
10th Nov 2015, 3:55 PM – Senate Business - Coalmining - Oppose Shenhua Watermark coal mine |
absent | No |
3rd Mar 2015 – Senate Motions — Liverpool Plains |
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.