We can't say anything concrete about how Ursula Stephens voted on the use of strong encryption technologies
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.