Compare how Paul Calvert and Fiona Nash voted on increasing surveillance powers

Now this is where it gets a bit tricky… Two people might vote the same way on votes they both attended, so their votes are 100% in agreement. They might also have voted in a way we’d describe differently when looking at all of one person's votes. If the other person didn’t or couldn’t have attended those votes we leave those out of the comparison. Because that just wouldn’t be fair now, would it?

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing surveillance powers” which either Paul Calvert or Fiona Nash could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Paul Calvert and Fiona Nash on this policy. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".

Division Paul Calvert Fiona Nash Supporters vote

8th Nov 2016, 7:24 PM – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016 - Second Reading - Agree to the bill's main idea

- Yes Yes

26th Mar 2015 – Senate Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

- Yes Yes

25th Sep 2014, 9:31 PM – Senate National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

- Yes Yes

22nd Aug 2012, 12:34 PM – Senate Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

- absent Yes

22nd Aug 2012, 11:53 AM – Senate Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 - In Committee - Agree to amendments introducing limitations on access and disclosure

- absent No

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing surveillance powers” which either Paul Calvert or Fiona Nash could have attended. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".

Division Paul Calvert Fiona Nash Supporters vote

16th Jun 2015, 4:18 PM – Senate Motions — Unlawful Bulk Data Collection — Recognise Edward Snowden's work

- No No

29th Oct 2014 – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014 - Third Reading - Pass the bill

- absent Yes

28th Oct 2014, 7:59 PM – Senate Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014 — Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea

- Yes Yes

25th Sep 2014, 1:53 PM – Senate National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 - In Committee - Limit number of devices ASIO can access

- No No

25th Sep 2014 – Senate National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 - in Committee - Limit access to computers to extent necessary

- absent No

27th Feb 2013, 4:11 PM – Senate Motions - National Security Inquiry - Abandon plan to retain data for up to two years

- absent No

2nd Mar 2011, 12:30 PM – Senate Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 — In Committee - ASIO's annual report (access to information)

- absent No

20th Sep 2007, 7:53 PM – Senate Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2007 — In Committee — Require judicial warrants

- No No

30th Mar 2006, 1:37 PM – Senate Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006 — In Committee - Schedule 3 (equipment based interception)

Yes Yes Yes

30th Mar 2006, 1:15 PM – Senate Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006 — In Committee — Schedule 2 (B—party interceptions)

Yes Yes Yes

30th Mar 2006, 12:21 PM – Senate Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006 — In Committee — Schedule 2 (B—party interceptions)

Yes Yes No

30th Mar 2006, 12:18 PM – Senate Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006 — In Committee — B—party interceptions

No No No

28th Mar 2006, 10:47 PM – Senate Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 2006 — In Committee - Sunset clause and review

No No No