We can't say anything concrete about how Steve Martin voted on the use of strong encryption technologies
How Steve Martin 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 Steve Martin could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Steve Martin on this policy.
| Division | Steve Martin | 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 Steve Martin could have attended.
| Division | Steve Martin | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
6th Dec 2018, 7:22 PM – Senate Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 - Third Reading - Pass the bill |
absent | No |
6th Dec 2018, 7:09 PM – Senate Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea |
absent | No |
15th Aug 2018, 4:06 PM – Senate Motions - Digital Encryption - Warrant and privacy |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Steve Martin 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.