We can't say anything concrete about how Nick Xenophon voted on protecting citizens' privacy
How Nick Xenophon voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should respect its citizens' right to privacy and make sure all sensitive information it does have access to (such as medical, census or tax data) is kept secure
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for protecting citizens' privacy” which Nick Xenophon could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Nick Xenophon on this policy.
| Division | Nick Xenophon | 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 Nick Xenophon could have attended.
| Division | Nick Xenophon | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
18th Jun 2013, 4:07 PM – Senate Motions - PRISM - Australia's vulnerability |
absent | Yes |
27th Feb 2013, 4:11 PM – Senate Motions - National Security Inquiry - Abandon plan to retain data for up to two years |
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 Nick Xenophon was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete.