How David Johnston 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 David Johnston could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of David Johnston on this policy.

Division David Johnston 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 David Johnston could have attended.

Division David Johnston Supporters vote

23rd Feb 2016, 6:36 PM – Senate Regulations and Determinations — Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area – Ceduna and Surrounding Region) Determination 2015; Disallowance

absent No

How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out

Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case David Johnston was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.