We can't say anything concrete about how Fiona Nash voted on the use of strong encryption technologies
How Fiona Nash 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 Fiona Nash could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Fiona Nash on this policy.
| Division | Fiona Nash | 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 Fiona Nash could have attended.
| Division | Fiona Nash | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
23rd Feb 2016, 4:00 PM – Senate Motions - Digital Encryption - Develop technology |
absent | Yes |
14th Nov 2013, 11:34 AM – Senate Motions - Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee Reference - Surveillance |
absent | Yes |
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 Fiona Nash was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.