BEST OF 2021: Zed Seselja is the worst and that's great

Zed has done three fifths of absolutely NOTHING for the ACT. Name one policy he himself has actually put up and pushed through to benefit Canberra?
Name one time he has actually defended the ACT when the current government has made policies that directly harm it?
Even the local Young Liberals don’t want him there.
He is a member of the current majority party in Australia – of course he has more runs on the board than someone who isn’t – that’s an absolutely stupid comment.

Eat an onion! Tony Abbott, what a benchmark. Another Christian zealot living in the 50s. Can you let us know who else is important. Your guidance is invaluable!

Kevin Rudd ate ear wax, so what?

Ray,
Perhaps you should apply the same lens to our other Senator Katy Gallagher. What’s the difference?

Neither has done anything for the ACT and they aren’t really able to because their seats and the ACT electorates are so rusted on, that no political party pays us much mind.

Abbott was very effective in opposition, but an awful PM. Seselja opposes most things, so may be considered similar especially as both seem to want to live in the past. However, Zed is much less fit and shows little sense of being community minded.

Did we read the same article? What I read was disgustingly pro-Zed

@cockneyreject
Your argument would hold true if we were talking about matters affecting all Australians. However, we are talking about a politician whose role, as Senator for ACT, is to represent all citizens, not just those in a particular area or demographic. While he is entitled to his own opinion, when it comes to his official role, he should follow the will of the many – not just the few, especially on matters where the majority position is clear (such as Same Sex Marriage and VAD). That’s what representative democracy is about.

I thought I had some fanciful ideas I occasionally post but your “Zali Steggall” one tops all I have put forward.

CapitalRetro – I’ll keep that one (“I thought I had some fanciful ideas I occasionally post …”) for future reference 😉

Relax GrumpyNark, I’m not about to challenge your status as the leader in posting fanciful ideas.

Except as provided for by our laws, the Feds are the ones responsible for legislating on this issue as they are for many other areas of government.

You think the ACT government should be able to legislate on this issue but don’t say exactly why. Should local councils be able to legislate on these types of things also?

You also ignore the fact that this issue has been legislated on by our democratically elected government. Whether you or I like that outcome or not is irrelevant.

Yes Chewy14, enshrined in the legislation that gave ACT and NT self government was the capacity for the Feds to override legislation passed by those jurisdictions. Under the Constitution, the Feds can’t do the same to state legislation. In 2018, (then) Senator David Leyonhjelm introduced a bill into the Senate to remove the federal ban on the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory legislating for euthanasia. Senator Seselja voted against that bill. No doubt he will vote the same way if Senator Sam McMahon includes the ACT in her proposed bill. So he has denied the citizens of the ACT and NT the same right as citizens in the states (i.e. the right to have their democratically elected representatives debate and vote on VAD legislation). You do know that the NT actually did pass legislation legalising euthanasia in 1996 before the Feds overrode the legislation, don’t you? So your mention of local councils in this matter is an irrelevant smoke screen.

Grumpymark,
No my mention of councils is a legitimate comparison around levels of government and the powers given to each. One that you conveniently ignore.

“So he has denied the citizens of the ACT and NT the same right as citizens in the states (i.e. the right to have their democratically elected representatives debate and vote on VAD legislation).”

Once again ignoring the point. We have democratically elected representatives who have debated and legislated on this issue. At the federal level as defined by legislation and the constitution as you’ve said.

We aren’t a state, which is why our legislative assembly doesn’t have the power of one. Just because you or I don’t like the outcome of the democratically elected governments legislation is irrelevant.

Unless I’m mistaken, Chewy14 (and I’m sure you’ll correct me if I am) no council government has the power to legislate on the same matters as the ACT and NT Assemblies. In Australia we have 3 levels of government as described by the Parliamentary Education Office (https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/three-levels-of-government/three-levels-of-government-governing-australia/):
“- federal Parliament—makes laws for the whole of Australia
– 6 state and 2 mainland territory parliaments—make laws for their state or territory
– over 500 local councils—make local laws (by-laws) for their region or district.”
Do you see that the territories are under the same level as states and have the right to legislate in the same areas as the states? Furthermore, the chief minister represents the ACT Government as a member of the National Cabinet – which Mayor or Lord Mayor is a member of the National Cabinet? So I trust you now understand I didn’t “conveniently ignore” the powers given to the ACT Assembly. Next you infer that I “don’t like the outcome of the democratically elected governments(sic) legislation”. Actually, the matter I am challenging is Senator Seselja’s failure to support legislation to allow the Territories the right to debate and vote on legislation on VAD, that is within their scope of power (as evidenced by the NT law on Euthanasia). The question before the Feds, was not whether or not to allow VAD in the Territories, it was whether or not to allow Territories to consider VAD legislation – without a majority vote of both houses of the federal parliament overriding the enactment of the legislation if passes. So it’s about ACT citizen Seselja voting against legislation that would have given his fellow ACT citizens the same democratic rights as citizens in the 7 states – i.e. to have legislation considered, debated and voted on by their elected representatives.

Grumpymark,
Except as I’ve explained, there is no different democratic rights. We aren’t a state and for very good reason, yet we still have a democratically elected government which has legislated on this issue and could chamge that legislation if it was supported.

Even your link, which has no real standing outlines how responsibilities are shared.

And it’s perfectly reasonable for the Senator to not want to consider piecemeal legislation on legislative rights for one single issue.

He’s outlines that he would be more supportive of a wider territory rights bill but that’s not what is being proposed.

“So it’s about ACT citizen Seselja voting against legislation that would have given his fellow ACT citizens the same democratic rights as citizens in the 7 states – i.e. to have legislation considered, debated and voted on by their elected representatives.”

As above, we already have legislation that has been considered and debated on by our democratically elected representatives. You just don’t like the outcome so you want to override the constitution and the legislation that has covered the issue.

While I accept and respect your right to oppose VAD, Chewy14, I’m not prepared to accept your right to falsely represent the truth to support your opposition.

You assert that the Feds considered legalising VAD for the ACT and voted it down – which is a complete falsehood.

No government in Australia has ever considered legislation to allow VAD or euthanasia in the ACT. Under the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 – Section 23 (1A), the Assembly “has no power to make laws permitting or having the effect of permitting (whether subject to conditions or not) the form of intentional killing of another called euthanasia (which includes mercy killing) or the assisting of a person to terminate his or her life“.

The Senate (including Senator Seselja) voted against legislation which would override that section and ALLOW the territories to make laws on VAD. The subtlety of the difference may be lost on you, but the Feds do not pass ACT or NT legislation.

While it is likely that had the Senate vote been in favour of allowing the ACT consider such legislation, it would have passed in the ACT Assembly (given its composition at the time), that proposition has never been tested.

So while it suits your position on VAD if Senator Seselja continues to prevent the matter being debated in the ACT Assembly, I do not see how anyone can consider it to be anything but stifling democracy in the ACT.

There is a groundswell around Australia for the matter to be considered (some legislatures having already passed such legislation). The one solace for those of us who lament the loss of the ability of the ACT Assembly to consider VAD legislation, is that eventually, like those who opposed same sex marriage, opponents of VAD will be disappointed.

Grumpymark,
You clearly haven’t read my comments if you think I oppose VAD.

In fact I heartily support it, as I’ve commented multiple times here.

“You assert that the Feds considered legalising VAD for the ACT and voted it down – which is a complete falsehood.”

This is not what I’ve said. I said they have considered the issue and legislated on it. They have.

My entire point is that the we have different levels of government and the appropriate democratic body in charge of the issue for the ACT has considered and legislated on it.

We are not a state and we do not have the rights of a state for very good reasons. There is nothing slightly undemocratic about that as my example around council powers shows.

If you want to argue that the ACT should have the powers of a state, you should be arguing that we have robust systems of governance and can handle the issue (and any other reasons you might want to put forward).

But a look at the long term performance of self government in the ACT should dissuade anyone currently from the idea that our governance structures are up to the task.

This has nothing to to with a single issue and in fact the single issue focus actually proves how incapable our government is. This issue is around our governance structures and why it’s much better for these types of issues to be controlled at a Federal level for a small, immature territory.

@Chewy14
You support VAD, yet you also support Senator Seselja voting against repealing The Andrews Bill – which would enable the NT and ACT to legislate on VAD. That’s either counterintuitive (as the two seem mutually exclusive) or unconditional loyalty (to Senator Seselja).
You still don’t seem able to grasp the fact that the Feds have not actually voted on legislation to legalise VAD in either the NT or the ACT – they have, each time the matter has been raised voted, to not allow the territories to pass legislation on the matter. That’s an important difference – as the territories have the power to enact legislation, it’s just that the Feds can override any legislation.
The point I’m making is that the issue of the territories being able to enact such legislation has been considered, reconsidered and may be reconsidered again (the proposed McMahon Bill) – i.e. it will not be dropped, despite the fact you think it’s over.
All that’s needed for the ACT to consider VAD legislation, is the repealing of The Andrews Bill – and legislation is repealed in pretty much every session of any parliament. So I am confident that at some stage in the future (and it may not be until Senator Seselja has left) the Feds will vote to repeal The Andrews Bill.
I’ve chosen to ignore your ludicrous introduction of local councils to the discussion. There’s a reason The Andrews Bill did not include local councils – there is no provision for local councils to pass any legislation (and bylaws are not legislation), let alone legislation on VAD, as it is not their role under the definition of the three levels of government in Australia – which while you dismissed it earlier does co-join the states and territories under the second tier.

“That’s either counterintuitive (as the two seem mutually exclusive) or unconditional loyalty (to Senator Seselja).”

Or the third option where you didn’t read my comment that explains exactly the reasons.

“You still don’t seem able to grasp the fact that the Feds have not actually voted on legislation to legalise VAD in either the NT or the ACT”

Except they have because you would agree its illegal right now wouldn’t you? Hmmm, wonder why that would be?

Perhaps because there is a law that was drafted, debated and legislated that makes it so?

As I’ve said above, the government does not need to debate a specific piece of legislation on every single small issue for that issue to have been considered.

“The point I’m making is that the issue of the territories being able to enact such legislation has been considered, reconsidered and may be reconsidered again (the proposed McMahon Bill) – i.e. it will not be dropped, despite the fact you think it’s over.”

I don’t think anything is “over”, I think that under the current government, it is extraordinarily unlikely to change. The good thing about our system of government is we get to vote and lobby to change both government’s and laws over time.

“The Andrews Bill did not include local councils – there is no provision for local councils to pass any legislation (and bylaws are not legislation), let alone legislation on VAD, as it is not their role under the definition of the three levels of government in Australia – which while you dismissed it earlier does co-join the states and territories under the second tier”

I didn’t ignore it, your explanation wasn’t correct. If there are 3 levels of government, where is the ACT’s third level? The ACT is not equal to the States.

“ Except they have because you would agree its illegal right now wouldn’t you? Hmmm, wonder why that would be?”
Actually chewy14, you have just confirmed my argument. Yes it is illegal for the ACT pass legislation on VAD (on two fronts) but if those two pieces of legislation are repealed then the ACT Assembly would have the power to legislate on VAD. To follow your “… law that was drafted, debated and legislated …” logic, had the Leyonhjelm motion passed, VAD would be legal in the ACT. Not so, it would have merely given the ACT (and NT) the power to decide such legislation. You correctly state the ACT is not equal to the states, and I have never said that, I have said the territories are grouped under level 2 government WITH the states. Oh by the sun at, that wasn’t my explanation, it came from the Parliamentary Education Office – the body which has hosted thousands of school kids in Parliament House over the years, and has provided that very same comparison to those school kids. So forgive me if I choose to accept their expertise in this area over yours.

Good to have you back, GrumpyMark.

This is not even remotely correct.

We currently have the same democratic rights as everywhere else. The elected body in charge (the federal government) has decided that Euthanasia is off the cards.

Do I agree with that? No. But it doesn’t mean that we are having our democratic rights run over. Is it undemocratic that local councils can’t legislate on this issue as well?

If people don’t like Zed, they are free to vote for other candidates at each election.

You are wrong the federal government retains the right to overturn legislation made by the Territories. A has done so on several occasions. So we don’t have enough the same democratic rights of citizens of the states. If you want you rights quashed by the federal government keep voting LNP.

Rob,
Yes the Federal government has those powers as the responsible democratic body to determine those issues. Thats my point. We have the same democratic rights to vote for people to represent us through them.

And we don’t live in a state, so why would our local government have the powers of one?

I also notice you completely ignored my comparison to local councils. Are state governments quashing the rights of citizens because they don’t let local councils legislate on these issues as well?

This has absolutely zero to do with your “rights” and everything to do with the responsible democratic body determining these issues.

If it’s off the cards, how is it that several legislatures have passed legislation to allow VAD?

Grumpymark, who said anything about it being “off the cards”?

My entire point is that the responsible democratically elected body can legislate on the issue. And they have done so.

Ummm, perhaps you should read your own posts, Chewy14 , as YOU said it was off the cards, and I quote:
“We currently have the same democratic rights as everywhere else. The elected body in charge (the federal government) has decided that Euthanasia is off the cards.”
Well, as I said in another post in this thread, the Feds have never voted on euthanasia or VAD in the ACT – they have voted to prevent the ACT from considering such legislation. So we do not have the same democratic rights as other legislatures which have been able to consider VAD legislation – some have whom have actually passed such legislation and the Feds (including Senator Seselja) can do nothing about it.

Grumpymark,
You were comparing State governments to our own.

As they have different powers, it can be legislated on in one but “off the cards” for another. Which is entirely the point.

“Well, as I said in another post in this thread, the Feds have never voted on euthanasia or VAD in the ACT – they have voted to prevent the ACT from considering such legislation”

This is incorrect, the original law covering the area at a Federal level by definition considered the issue because it is illegal. You do not need specific legislation and debate on a single issue in parliament for it to “have been considered” as part of wider legislation.

And the issue was then considered again, when the Federal government prevented the ACT from legislating in the area. A vote to keep the status quo is a consideration of the issue, whether you like it or not.

chewy14
To which ”original law” (which the Feds considered “illegal”) are you referring? The ACT has never passed VAD legislation for the Feds to override it – the ACT self-government act specifically excludes their right to do so. If you are referring to the NT euthanasia law which the Feds overrode, The Andrews Bill did not declare it illegal but simply voided it and prevented them from enacting such legislation in the future – as per the right they retained in ceding responsibility for passing legislation in their respective territories to the NT and ACT Assemblies.
“You do not need specific legislation and debate on a single issue in parliament for it to “have been considered” as part of wider legislation.” I have no idea what you mean by this. However, The Andrews Bill was a single issue legislation.
Yes you are right – I don’t like the fact that the Feds have failed to agree to legislation to allow the ACT to consider legislation on VAD. However, I am pleased to see the matter will be considered again for the NT (if not the ACT) under the McMahon bill. If it is defeated in the Senate, as may happen, I will be annoyed that Senator Seselja has failed to represent the will of the wider community. However, despite what you hope, there is no limit on the number of times legislation can be reintroduced.

@ChrisinTurner When was the last poll on restoring the death penalty conducted in the ACT, let alone one which showed a majority support it? As for VAD – every politician in the ACT Assembly (including Liberal MLAs) believes they should be able to consider legislation on this. That does not mean they are in favour of VAD, they simply want the opportunity to debate such legislation, as is their role in representing their constituency. For completeness, Senator Seselja is the only ACT politician who does not believe the ACT Assembly should be able to consider VAD legislation, as all other Federal politicians (who are Labor members and a Senator) have stated their support for ACT on this.