We can't say anything concrete about how Maria Kovacic voted on procedural fairness
How Maria Kovacic voted compared to someone who agrees that all Australian laws should be subject to procedural fairness requirements so that people can request reasons for government decisions that impact them personally and can appeal those decisions on the basis of whether they were made lawfully
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for procedural fairness” which Maria Kovacic could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Maria Kovacic on this policy.
| Division | Maria Kovacic | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for procedural fairness” which Maria Kovacic could have attended.
| Division | Maria Kovacic | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
5th Dec 2023, 6:39 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 - in Committee - Statement and natural justice |
Yes | No |
5th Dec 2023, 4:42 PM – Senate Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions and Other Measures) Bill 2023 - Second Reading - deportation and imprisonment |
absent | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Maria Kovacic 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.