Compare how Kate Lundy and David Feeney voted on protecting citizens' privacy

Now this is where it gets a bit tricky… Two people might vote the same way on votes they both attended, so their votes are 100% in agreement. They might also have voted in a way we’d describe differently when looking at all of one person's votes. If the other person didn’t or couldn’t have attended those votes we leave those out of the comparison. Because that just wouldn’t be fair now, would it?

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for protecting citizens' privacy” which either Kate Lundy or David Feeney could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Kate Lundy and David Feeney on this policy. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".

Division	Kate Lundy	David Feeney	Supporters vote
no votes listed

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for protecting citizens' privacy” which either Kate Lundy or David Feeney could have attended. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".

Division	Kate Lundy	David Feeney	Supporters vote
18th Jun 2013, 4:07 PM – Senate Motions - PRISM - Australia's vulnerability	absent	No	Yes
27th Feb 2013, 4:11 PM – Senate Motions - National Security Inquiry - Abandon plan to retain data for up to two years	No	No	Yes
26th Feb 2007, 3:49 PM – Senate Motions - Smartcard - Privacy	Yes	-	Yes