How Joe Ludwig 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 Joe Ludwig 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.

No 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.

No Yes Not passed by a modest majority

How "voted very strongly against" is worked out

The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes get 50 points, less important votes get 10 points, and less important votes for which the MP was absent get 2 points. In important votes the MP gets awarded the full 50 points for voting the same as the policy, 0 points for voting against the policy, and 25 points for not voting. In less important votes, the MP gets 10 points for voting with the policy, 0 points for voting against, and 1 (out of 2) if absent.

Then, the number gets converted to a simple english language phrase based on the range of values it's within.

No of votes Points Out of
Most important votes (50 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 1 0 50
MP absent 0 0 0
Less important votes (10 points)      
MP voted with policy 0 0 0
MP voted against policy 1 0 10
Less important absentees (2 points)      
MP absent* 0 0 0
Total: 0 60

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Senators are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.

Agreement score = MP's points / total points = 0 / 60 = 0.0%.

And then