ugh, repulsive creature! 🤮

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9339143/jack-waterford-zed-seseljas-longlasting-liberal-influence/

1/2

"
I have been waiting for some time for someone to notice the remarkable congruence between allegations of a cult of Opus Dei zealots seeking to take over the NSW Liberal Party and what many have alleged in the ACT during the reign of Zed Seselja.

If the parallels are as they appear, it may well be that Zed was the more effective exponent of the dark arts involved. But still not successful, except in advancing his own career.

The ACT Liberal Party over the years has been generally a party of moderates, somewhat woke and very socially progressive, including on matters that cause reflex paroxysms among the very Catholic right.

Former Liberal chief ministers, Kate Carnell and Gary Humphries might be said to have been models of the type of non-Labor politicians able to find the broad wavelength of at least half of Canberra's voters, and to form governing coalitions with independents and minor parties, other than the Greens.

Gary Humphries, of course, went from being chief minister to senator, once Margaret Reid decided to step down, and was a popular representative, generally having little trouble getting that third of the popular vote necessary for an ACT person to become an ACT senator. Zed Seselja was a different kettle of fish, of the Liberal Party hard right.

Even during his term, Humphries had problems in getting unanimous support from within his own party. When in the ACT Assembly he was ambushed by Trevor Kaine, a much more conservative Liberal, though not noticeably a moralistic one.

There was a certain irony in this, given that Humphries had earlier plotted to take Kaine's position as leader of the party and afterwards became a little too complacent. He failed to learn sufficiently from this near-death experience even after it was clear Seselja was assembling the numbers to depose him in his Senate seat.

The very first assembly after self-government had a number of members belonging to anti-self government parties, some of whom seemed to have belonged to religiously conservative collectives, and others of whom shared somewhat nutty and conspiratorial views including about fluoride, and League of Rights issues such as citizen initiative referendums.

Some of the more religiously focused had pious acquaintances known to me but whom I regarded as essentially harmless. I was reluctant to have The Canberra Times accused of being in any sectarian conflict and was in any event somewhat scornful of their political skills. The members did not fail to get critical attention from our reporters, but not much of it was focused on religion. They defeated themselves.

Once Zed Seselja appeared upon the scene it became obvious that he was attempting to master the numbers in the Liberal Party in his own interests. He gathered a tight disciplined group to support him.

Some thought this intrinsically sinister, but it was ordinary politics. It was also clear that the basis of his support, and his recruitment of numbers, was opposition to the ACT Liberals' progressive views on matters such as abortion, voluntary euthanasia, discrimination and human rights.

I had no idea whether his mission had any sort of episcopal blessing, or was receiving any support from party members, new or old, with non-religious agendas. But there was ample gossip about the emergence of a Catholic Taliban in the ACT Liberal Party, and not a few were pushing the Canberra Times to make investigations. In retrospect I think we should have been much more curious, and that we let our readers down by not pursuing inquiries with sufficient zeal. There was never a prospect of a Seselja chief ministership.

But investigation would never have been straightforward. There was no evidence suggesting impropriety or criminality, as has emerged during the ICAC inquiry in NSW. As the SMH lawyers are given to insisting be written into ICAC reports, it is not actually illegal to stack party branches. If it was, I could think of lots in many parties deserving of jail. Likewise with technical trickery, tactical deafness, and, sometimes, paying members' fees, and other minor bits of political skulduggery.

What was being suggested about Seselja was that an ambitious politician had encouraged like-minded people to join the party to throw the current rascals out, in his favour. And that he was employing some dark arts to do so.

The pitch suggested that 5000 traditional Catholics banded together could take over the Liberal Party and wind back the clock on issues such as same sex marriage, abortion and euthanasia. Even 500, or maybe 50 disciplined folk could achieve important outcomes.

It's an appeal of a type that resonates left and right, at times inspiring Trotskyites to join and change the Labor (or UK Labour) Party, "sound" Catholics to join Labor and the Industrial Groups to defeat communist infiltration, or gatherings of real estate agents, or doctors, or candlestick makers to get a local council that would righteously do the will of the relevant individuals.

It's the stuff of politics all over but it requires a lot of discipline, invigilation, secrecy, and often, active deception, manipulation, and frequently actually dodgy conduct. Players must figure whether and when ends justify means, and whether the power accumulated, if any, can be deployed for other less worthy purposes, such as feathering one's own nest. The crusades often fall over from their own contradictions. They often become subverted to advance the interests of those who got the show on the road. Witness the Faction in NSW.

The Faction was extremely secretive and non-consultative, and admitted no obligation to be transparent in their activities, even to other party members. They would give very strong pushback to anyone asking the religious question, suggesting that emphasising it was being anti-Catholic.

The Catholic thing was anyway a bit of a puzzle. The church's leadership no longer has much moral sway over Catholics, whether church attending or merely nominal. Canberra Catholics, like Australian Catholics generally, are as likely as any other citizens to use birth control, to have abortions, to support euthanasia, to oppose Catholic bigotry in the employment of teachers, to be tolerant of homosexuality and expansive gender politics. In these days too they are as likely as anyone else to support same sex marriage.

For some members of the Australian Catholic hierarchy, and for extremely conservative members of groups such as Opus Dei, these are litmus moral issues, regarded by some as disqualifying one's right to call themselves Catholic. But the views of the bishops no longer command votes or moral or spiritual authority. It's mostly their own fault.

In many circles the church, and its leaders, have lost moral capital because of their appalling stewardship over child sexual abuse. That is a continuing scandal, with many bishops and religious leaders reneging on promises made to the abuse royal commission.

It also underlines a continuing divide between the Australian bishops and the last two popes, with many Australian church leaders, including the late cardinal George Pell virtually preaching mutiny. The Australian laity gives the pope more loyalty and good example than do some of the bishops.

The parallels with Ireland, the mother home of traditional Australian Catholicism are clear. Once regarded as a jewel of faithful and obedient Catholicism, years of scandal, particularly including sexual abuse at the hands of the church has rendered it among the most devoutly secular in Europe.

Spain and Portugal, also once fervent, are no longer so either, for much the same reason as well as the Church's traditional position of echoing and enforcing whatever the local wicked dictator wanted. In a recent Irish referendum on a moral issue, the church did not campaign for its moral position, aware that coming out would only increase the vote in favour of the proposition.

In these senses, the decision of even faithful zealots of the church to be seen to be playing secular politics seems strange. Regardless of what happens in heaven these are not vote-winning political positions. Indeed, in an informed electorate they virtually guarantee defeat.

That may cause a certain smug satisfaction, and some sense of being martyred for one's beliefs, like Christians at the Colosseum. But such vanities are very frustrating even for fellow Catholics of Liberal disposition. They, reasonably, are anxious to use what can be gained from politics for socially desirable (perhaps even Christian) outcomes, such as better healthcare, better community services, or social housing. For years, Labor has been able to win ACT elections by hinting that many of the Liberal candidates are religious fanatics, totally out of sync with the ideas and ideals of ordinary Canberrans.

That's a more acute problem now. ACT Labor, and Andrew Barr, have been in power for far too long. They have been treating Canberra as if they held it on freehold, not leasehold.

All the signs are that most of the electorate are sick of them. Voters want a new government. But they will not vote for a party thought to be dominated by the hard-held views of a narrow-minded Catholic sect.

They recognise that some of the current Liberals are not there to outlaw fun, or sin, and do not have secret agendas to take Canberra back to the prohibition-era. But they fear the continuing influence of the remnant.

Once Seselja became a senator he did not seem to care much about using his influence for the benefit of people of the ACT.

Unless the people of the ACT agreed with him or needed the discipline of dire punishment. Seselja moved almost immediately to becoming a power within the conservative faction of the federal Liberal Party, still more focused on moral issues than on economic matters.

Allowing that Labor will always tend to have majority support in the ACT (even if effective Liberals have been able to win), it ought not be hard for the ACT Liberal Party to secure the support of 33 per cent of the vote. The more so, given that Labor Senate candidates have never been able to secure even 50 per cent on first preferences. Zed could not even garner 33 per cent of first preferences at the last election and was dumped. His successor, independent David Pocock has entrenched his own position, and will almost certainly outpoll Katy Gallagher, of the Labor Party, at the next election.
"

#actPol #AusPol WhyTheFuckIsLabor HahahahaLiebs NatsAreNuts GreensYEAH VoteGreens VoteProgIndies PHONkedinthehead