How George Brandis voted compared to someone who believes 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.

Division George Brandis Supporters vote Division outcome

23rd Feb 2016, 4:00 PM – Senate Motions - Digital Encryption - Develop technology

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam. The motion called for further development of strong encryption technologies, while resisting the move to weaken encryption on personal devices.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) strong digital encryption protects the personal and financial information of millions of people,

(ii) encryption is an important tool to prevent identity theft and other crime,

(iii) encryption ensures that public interest whistleblowers, journalists and other civil society actors can conduct their activities more securely,

(iv) the Government, through services such as Medicare and Centrelink, and digital platforms such as myGov, depends on encryption to keep client information safe, and

(v) any decrease in public trust in digital systems and services will present an obstacle to the Government's agile innovation agenda; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) support the continued development and use of strong encryption technologies,

(ii) resist any push from other governments to weaken encryption on personal devices, and

(iii) work with law enforcement to develop alternative avenues to obtain information through warrants and targeted surveillance that does not put every Australian at greater risk of identity theft.

absent Yes (strong) Not passed by a modest majority

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

Show detail

The majority voted against a motion to refer certain surveillance related matters to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. The motion was introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam.

Motion text

That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 June 2014:

(a) the implications of revelations regarding surveillance of private communications and the indiscriminate interception of personal data by the US National Security Agency and other agencies for the Australian government, businesses and citizens, including risks to:

(i) Australian citizens' fundamental human right to privacy, freedom of expression, the presumption of innocence and the protection of data,

(ii) Australia's diplomatic relationships in the region, and

(iii) increased compliance costs and risks to business through the undermining of confidence in the security of commercial data and encryption standards;

(b) appropriate measures to address, mitigate or eliminate these risks; and

(c) any other relevant matters.

absent Yes Not passed by a modest majority

How "never voted" 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 George Brandis was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other than that they have "never voted" on this policy.