How Ursula Stephens voted compared to someone who agrees that Strong encryption technologies are critical and necessary enablers of communications and commerce. Strong encryption technologies should not be restricted, back-doored, undermined or crippled by law.

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for the use of strong encryption technologies” which Ursula Stephens could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Ursula Stephens on this policy.

Division Ursula Stephens Supporters vote
no votes listed

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for the use of strong encryption technologies” which Ursula Stephens could have attended.

Division Ursula Stephens Supporters vote

14th Nov 2013, 11:34 AM – Senate Motions - Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee Reference - Surveillance

No Yes

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

Ursula Stephens 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.