We can't say anything concrete about how Andrew McLachlan voted on compulsory income management for welfare recipients
How Andrew McLachlan voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should introduce a hybrid welfare quarantining regime to replace the Cashless Debit Card (CDC) regime and it should be compulsory for certain recipients
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for compulsory income management for welfare recipients” which Andrew McLachlan could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Andrew McLachlan on this policy.
| Division | Andrew McLachlan | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
22nd Jun 2023, 1:27 PM – Senate Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 - Third Reading - Pass the bill |
absent | Yes |
22nd Jun 2023, 1:13 PM – Senate Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 - in Committee - Sunset clause |
absent | No |
22nd Jun 2023, 12:49 PM – Senate Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea |
absent | Yes |
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for compulsory income management for welfare recipients” which Andrew McLachlan could have attended.
| Division | Andrew McLachlan | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
28th Feb 2024, 6:34 PM – Senate Regulations - Social Security (Administration) (Declared Child Protection State — NSW, Qld, SA and Vic) Determination 2023 and two others - Disallow |
absent | No |
4th Dec 2023, 4:25 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations - Social Security (Administration) (Enhanced Income Management Regime — Cth Referrals & Exemptions) Determination 2023 and another - Disallowance |
No | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Andrew McLachlan 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.