We can't say anything concrete about how Maria Kovacic voted on transgender children and young people having access to gender affirming healthcare
How Maria Kovacic voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should not restrict access to gender affirming healthcare for transgender people under the age of eighteen, rather they should leave healthcare matters in the hands of the professional bodies responsible for administering such healthcare (e.g., the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Psychological Society, etc.)
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for transgender children and young people having access to gender affirming healthcare” 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 transgender children and young people having access to gender affirming healthcare” which Maria Kovacic could have attended.
| Division | Maria Kovacic | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
28th Feb 2024, 4:01 PM – Senate Committees - Community Affairs Legislation Committee; Reference - Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023 |
absent | No |
3rd Aug 2023, 11:26 AM – Senate Committees - Community Affairs References Committee; Reference - Gender diverse children and young people |
No | 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.