We can't say anything concrete about how Tammy Tyrrell voted on transgender children and young people having access to gender affirming healthcare
How Tammy Tyrrell 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 Tammy Tyrrell could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Tammy Tyrrell on this policy.
| Division | Tammy Tyrrell | 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 Tammy Tyrrell could have attended.
| Division | Tammy Tyrrell | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
28th Feb 2024, 4:01 PM – Senate Committees - Community Affairs Legislation Committee; Reference - Childhood Gender Transition Prohibition Bill 2023 |
No | No |
3rd Aug 2023, 11:26 AM – Senate Committees - Community Affairs References Committee; Reference - Gender diverse children and young people |
absent | No |
20th Mar 2023, 4:30 PM – Senate Matters of Urgency - Gender Dysphoria - For an inquiry |
absent | No |
30th Nov 2022, 4:18 PM – Senate Committees - Community Affairs References Committee; Reference - Puberty blockers and disproven theory |
absent | No |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Tammy Tyrrell 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.