G'day I'm Martyn Iles and I'm coming to you a
little differently once again in this election season. I'm speaking to another person
who's going to be on your ticket if you live in the ACT when it comes to voting
day on the 21st of May this year, and it is Senator Zed Seselja, the Minister for
International Development and the Pacific. Zed thank you for doing this. Thanks very
much for having me on Martyn. Zed you are somebody who I think would be maybe in the top
three to five contenders for most exotic name in the Parliament. You're known as Zed but you're
how do you pronounce your actual first name? Well it depends if it's Croatian or English but
uh zdenko or zdenko in Croatia okay, so z d e n k.
It means sort of uh a well or a spring okay yeah
so oh nice yeah a well of wisdom or something like that you could fill in the blanks who knows
there'd be all sorts of different views on that button look I'm going to give you a quick
career summary um and i've got some notes here this is the quickest career summary you're ever
going to have had uh you were the child of and i think i can say this poor migrants relatively
yeah certainly pretty modest income yeah yeah so your dad took up photography and was there that's
right single income six kids six kids yeah then you went on and worked at woolies then you're
a cleaner then you studied law and arts then you became a legal assistant at the australian
fisheries management authority you went through a couple of stages to become senior lawyer at the
department of transport and regional services you were then a member of the act legislative assembly
which for viewers who aren't in the act it's the territory government down here in canberra and
that was in 2004 had a bunch of shadow portfolios but i think were most well known for being the
opposition leader and that was 2007 to 2013 came within an inch an inch so close so so so
close to taking territory government in 2013 and for in this political environment for a liberal
opposition to get to that point is a big deal you know here in the act so you did that didn't
get there but then quickly became senator for the act went up to the federal parliament
then you had a number of assistant minister portfolios social services multicultural affairs
science jobs and innovation treasury and finance finance charities and electoral matters and now
you are the minister for international development and the pacific somewhere in there you found
time to have five children get married to roz uh that's quite a a picture of success and
achievement what's your reflection on it well it's um it's interesting when you sort of
summarize it like that it's it's it's rare that you sort of think think back to sort of you know
being a cleaner in um right to my old school it was mckillip catholic uh high school um but look
it's it's been a really exciting journey i guess and you know i've enjoyed all of the different
aspects at various times i've found struggles and challenges in all of them at various times the
family journey has been the most important but the career journey obviously has been something
that i take very seriously and i see as a bit of a vocation going into politics so very much if
i think about it you know it was you know ros and i very much making those decisions together those
big life decisions such as i mean the big moment really is when you decide to go into politics the
first time and then changes your life it does it does and then putting your hand up to be leader
and those sort of things are big big moments so yeah there's a lot there um i i guess at some
point i'll be able to reflect back on that and and think about things you know hopefully that i've
achieved in that time things where i've fallen short and there's many of those as well and and
and hopefully reflect on you know i guess that i did my best and trying to try to make a difference
for the city first and then for the nation and you are now minister for international development of
the pacific so you've got a portfolio that affects the whole nation and indeed some overseas nations
as well yeah um now i think as with a lot of things in politics people hear that title and go
oh yeah but inwardly they're kind of blanking out what is the role exactly so it's the two the
two roles sort of come together so international development is effectively our aid and so that
that's all around the world that's not just in the pacific so that's our four and a half billion
dollar or so annual aid spend oh i see because there was a change not that long ago there was a
big discussion about the fact that aid was going into development work rather than simply more of a
donation style aid system yeah i mean the language is development assistance so the technical
language is oda overseas development assistance that's that's how we measure what we do but then
what we do in the pacific is a pretty large chunk of that overall aid spend so nearly half it's 1.85
billion this year in the pacific but there's a lot more we do in the pacific as well and you know
it's really interesting um the engagement in the pacific is huge the aid spend is part of that
the security cooperation those sort of things but even within the aid and the and the contact
i mean we've got great people to people links the sport and the faith side of things are huge
okay um it's a really interesting thing that when i'll meet with pacific leaders and sometimes
on the phone and sometimes in person obviously more on the phone uh in the time i've been in
the role but certainly there's been enough in person we'll often have a prayer together and I've
done that I've done that with you they're very religious nations aren't they they are the pacific
nations very faithful yeah and i appreciate um they appreciate you doing that um for me obviously
it's you know it's a genuine thing I'm a Christian it was interesting i met with a number of pacific
leaders in Brisbane a couple of weeks ago and we're talking about a number of these topical
issues such as the Solomon Islands and things and i met with the uh tongan prime minister for
the first time tongue prime minister and the foreign minister and I led off with a prayer when
we met and we had a really good chat and talked about all sorts of issues but at the end of it he
uh we were you know we were hanging hanging around and having a bit of a light-hearted chat and he
said you know he said it was nice that that that it was someone else who led the prayer rather than
us you know it's always the pacific islanders who do that so I think he appreciated that we were
able to you know come together in prayer and and it's you know i think it's bonding uh to do that
absolutely it's a good good fit for the role i mean you volunteered the fact that uh you're a man
of faith you're a christian uh and you mentioned before that your role in politics you see it as
a vocation do you have any comment on you know obviously I talk to a lot of christians about
politics and there is a prevailing resistance i don't know why really but there is a prevailing
resistance to the idea that people of faith should have involvement in the political space and
take it very seriously you use the word vocation which is you know taken very seriously what's your
feedback on that you know is it is it right and good for people of faith to do it without a doubt
i mean my my view when I came to a very strong judgment when i first went in 2004 uh was if if
good people and then that's not of course just people of faith there are plenty of good people
who are not people of faith but if good people are not in the political process as messy as
that is and it's messy it's tough uh but if the good people aren't there and people who
have genuine good intentions and good values including uh people of the Christian faith very
importantly then well there'll be people maybe who have different values and and different things
driving them and i think most people who go into politics have very good intentions but you know
world view is important and certainly i think that um christians should absolutely
be in a space i think that I'm a big believer that whilst I'm very happy
we live in a pluralist democracy there's people of different faiths there's people of no faith
that's that's one of the great freedoms we have to to worship or not um and and i respect that and i
respect our democracy and but it i would argue and make the argument that certainly christian values
and what we learn particularly from the gospels adds i think a lot to public life and
i think i think the idea of loving your neighbor as yourself i think the idea
that we're crowded in the image of god brings a certain perspective that i think is
important and um yeah we don't ram that down everyone anyone's throat but it certainly informs
you know who we are and informs our world view and i would say to christians yeah it's messy but you
know what church politics is messy life is messy nothing's easy nothing worth doing is easy and
sure and i would say that christians being there is is a positive for sure yeah it's interesting
um even you're a minister which is just borrowed straight out of Romans 13 which calls people
in you know politics leaders ministers of God, so yeah it's a secret service yeah absolutely he's
serving the people in the government yeah you've said that uh and I read this in a speech that a
big motivation for you to go into politics was your children can you explain that yeah it's sort
of ironic because politics does take you away from your children a little bit uh and obviously it's
it's tough um I have a great blessing of you know being based in canberra and compared to many of my
federal colleagues you know not having to travel quite as much is is a great blessing but it's
still a great challenge of course and in my role and Minister for the pacific of course there's
members up in northern wa regional Tasmania yeah it adds an extra burden for sure um but
you know there's there's no doubt that um you know having children does um tend to make
you sort of just look at the world in a slightly different way to what you did before I think and
I did it very young um like Ros and I had Michael just before we finished uni actually wow so it was
actually the last day of lectures he came he was meant to come after exams but he came six weeks
early and uh so you know for me fundamentally I was looking at the world in a slightly different
way and that was i have this precious life that I'm responsible for now what kind of a world
do i want them growing up in and so that sort of got me thinking about the world in a slightly
different way I was probably always politically motivated i was always politically aware but
it sort of drew me to join the party and to get involved in a different way we see that so much
I would say that the number one consumers of the materials we put out particularly on world view
and about what the state of the nation and the affairs of you know what's going on the number
one consumers of that tend to be young parents yeah especially young mothers uh they're just
consuming it devouring it because something's changed you know in the way they view the world
i think they're you know grateful for people who can go into the space and you know stick up for
what is good and what is right well you want i mean you want your kids to grow up in a good place
and then and then by extension you want everyone's kids to grow up in a good place right and that's
and that's the draw of politics and public life you're um uh you are characterised as someone
of mostly conservative values uh and that's other people's words uh also
as we've said a man of faith Canberra has probably got a reputation as a
very very secular progressive jurisdiction um and those of us who live here know that uh and
I think that's led to some of your detractors predicting your political demise on multiple
occasions but you won in 2013 you won again 2016 2019 and for those following along uh territory
senators go to every election not every second like state senators so you've survived all of
those we're coming down on 2022 uh what's the secret how come you're surviving why are the
predictions of your imminent demise simply wide of the mark well look i mean it is it is
challenging there's no doubt it's quite marginal and so we fight very very hard to hold this
scene I think it's important that we do look i think i mean I do try and I'd say I'd
make a couple of points one you're right um in terms of i guess the characterization of the
city and certainly in its overall voting patterns and the like but that doesn't represent
absolutely everyone in the city there are still a substantial number of people in canberra
who i guess would have you know more traditional values depending on how you describe them but
certainly you know people of faith or otherwise just traditional values conservative center right
those sort of things so may not be a majority uh in the city but it's a substantial minority and
of course everyone needs a voice they certainly need a voice and sometimes they get shut down
and get told that their view is not valid and because they're not the majority in the city
those sort of things but I think also even reaching beyond you know that particular part
of the constituency i think you know i work hard for the city i mean there's a lot of things that i
would just seek to deliver you know infrastructure and housing and those sort of things whether
i was in local government or in in federal government and so i guess you do your best to try
and deliver you fight for things there are some people who may not agree with everything that i
stand for but may respect the fact that i stand for things so sure you know you get a bit of a
mixed bag but it's it's not easy but you've got to absolutely fight for every vote yeah sure um you
uh you're in a slightly different position to some in the parliament um perhaps i'll put it this
way amongst supporters i often see people that are following after very outspoken politicians
uh and there are larger than life politicians uh in the parliament who have large social media
accounts say a lot of good things speak their mind cross the floor on occasion you know all
that kind of stuff and i know that there's a prevailing mood out there that says well i wish
all the politicians were like that politician and that's not to criticise them at all they play
a very valuable service but I guess what you and I know and what those who follow policies closely
know is that they are back benches uh and that gives them a certain liberty or from a minor party
yeah uh and the reason I raise it is that you're in a slightly different position you're a minister
in the government uh and so you don't have the freedom to be as outspoken from the outside of
the tent so to speak uh and to you know break rank now but the question for me is you know does that
mean that your influence is any less valuable in the political process to me it's just a different
kind yeah look i think that's a fair summation i mean it's it's it's less visible sometimes i mean
i certainly had a period as a backbencher and i was outspoken on some issues and from time to time
i did differ with my party on issues and sometimes that gets you in a bit of trouble sure and also
someone i've read some of the speeches and some of that and some of those people who you you speak of
uh you know close friends of mine and i sometimes disagree when they speak out sometimes you know i
might i might agree but um but it is a different influence and you know being part of a government
means that you know there's a bit of collective decision-making and you know if you're not an
independent and i i think the parliament if it was full of independence i i think would be quite
chaotic i really think it would i know people can look at parliament and say you know it's
it's tough now and it can be a bit chaotic but at least when you have party platforms for good or
real you you get a bit of an understanding of what our party stands for what the labor party
stands for what other parties stand for independence really and if you had more and
more of them i think they could go anyway on any given issue there'd be a lot less certainty
so yeah there's there's times when you maybe not a hundred percent happy with the decision
that's taken by the government obviously you know and i haven't reached this point ever but
if you were if it were such a such a level um that you felt that uh you couldn't serve in that then
you know you'd have to consider your conscience and and that would mean resigning and of course
you know we all have to consider that uh and so you know we have to follow our consciences but
we also it is good to be part of a team that can deliver things as a government it doesn't stop
you having robust debate within the team yeah you know it's not in front of the tv cameras it's
not out on social media but you do have robust debate with your colleagues and an active role
in shaping those decisions yeah very much so and and a lot of those debates happen and you know you
can imagine when you're in parliament there's a lot of different groups of people who get together
sometimes over a drink or a meal sometimes you know in between parliamentary sittings and we're
constantly debating these things and there is very rarely a sort of universal view on any given issue
there are very few issues where we all agree but certainly you you have robust debate and i guess
as you have that opportunity having slightly more senior roles you know you can get the year of
the prime minister you can get the year of the relevant senior minister or you can influence
your backbench colleagues as well as you're having discussions yeah right there's a diversity
of influence there which is important i think yeah let me get into some of the uh issues i've got
a quote uh here from your maiden speech and this is on the subject of freedoms you said these
you said among those values those values that you you uphold are the protection of the great
freedoms freedom of speech enterprise and religion for me and my family this issue is personal one
of the reasons my family left croatia was because freedom of speech and religion in particular
were curtailed under a harsh communist regime my uncle is at stipaan my uncle stipaan spent several
years in a Yugoslav prison for daring to challenge the communist regime and assert his rights to
speak freely and freely practice his religion so obviously there's a story there which has deep
implications for your politics do you have implications for your beliefs so I want to
ask you questions on those great freedoms as you say but first of all I'm kind of interested
what did the regime have against uncle stephan well a couple of things and i he has written a
book he passed away a couple of years ago he was 89 he lived a great life um and he has written a
book but it's in Croatian I haven't yet read it I need it to be translated my croatians it's
okay but I couldn't read at that level but I've you know i've gleaned a bit from him and
from dad and and from others in the family he was a seminarian so he was studying to be
a priest at the time in the 1950s it was post world war ii there was a communist regime of tito
and there was part of it revolved around a very particular cleric who was in the firing line of
the yugoslavian regime cardinals to peanuts who was a very famous cleric he was under house arrest
i think at the time until he died i think in 1960 so he was sort of persecuted they made all sorts
of claims about him which i think have largely been debunked uh in a number of studies since
um but he was controversial my my uncle stiff understood refused to condemn him when you know
the the various um you know communist agitators would come and and get him to condemn and so they
put him in jail and you know there's probably more to the story i suspect as a soldier he probably
you know couldn't keep his mouth shut he probably wanted to speak and you know I'm sure not every
seminarian got put in jail at the time but maybe those who were particularly forceful in there
it's always the way isn't it it's the people who speak up indeed and that's true in it's
all through history um but he was there for about six years and one of the stories my dad
tells me it's quite inspiring is dad was quite little uh quite young when they visited him
in prison uh in the 1950s and he remembers um the guards talking to my grandmother um
and saying to her look your son could leave with you now he could go home with you right now
but he really needs to sort of renounce the faith that he needs to sort of back down on what he's
saying he refused um which you know showed great courage i think and puts into some perspective I
guess some of the debates we have around you know the the freedom to speak up the courage to speak
up i don't underestimate that speaking against the tide or against the majority or against
what's you know what the media are particularly supportive of at a particular time doesn't take
courage but you sort of compare it to that sort of courage and i think it does put it in a little
little bit of perspective for us and also make us reflect on what great freedoms we have that we're
not throwing in prison well that's right beliefs you know we might end up with a little bit of
harassment or something like this but it just might not be cancelled or it might be cancelled
exactly but it's just so light compared to what you see i mean i before doing this job i went to
europe and uh it was the protestant reformation anniversary at the time and uh to see the stories
of the courage that people took in those days like you know you mentioned your uncle stephan he
wouldn't renounce you know you think of someone like luther who says i cannot recant uh whatever
side of the tiber you're you're on it's it's it's great courage you know and again it sort of made
me feel like well you know what cowards are we in this day and age that we won't even be cancelled
for what we believe look and people shouldn't be cancelled of course not though yeah that's fair
enough they shouldn't be cancelled but nonetheless you know people of people have taken great uh
cost in the past yeah and that and and and by you know it does remind us too that even
small acts of courage now um maybe not quite as significant as you know being thrown in
prison and standing up to that but even small acts of courage matter because they they give other
people i think license to be courageous as well courage is contagious yeah you've got a close
association then through what we just discussed uh through your history through your family with
the dangers of authoritarianism the dangers of loss of those freedoms those great freedoms what
do you make then of what is the modern argument that I just encounter all the time and you'll
know it straight away which is that well you know these freedoms are harmful um and you know
they for example if people are free to speak or free to believe and act on their faith
you know it's all going to be unpredictable and you're going to get rat bags in there that
say horrible hurtful things or believe horrible hurtful things and you're going to do harm what's
your argument in reply to that objection I mean it comes up constantly well i think the type of harm
that's often talked about there in that criticism is a very subjective harm I suppose so obviously
you know we have rules and laws rightly about physical harm or encouraging physical
harm or encouraging violence and there's very good reasons we we do that but i think parts
of the sort of parts of the modern left i suppose in this contest on free speech have stepped to
another place where they will define all sorts of even offense as being harm and that's where you
get into very dangerous territory I think because it's very subjective and it's very much about
you know someone's personal experience or offense and response to something you might
have to say or I might have to say now when I defend freedom of speech and I don't I
don't um I like I tend to express myself i think pretty respectfully i actually think that's
a good principle I don't think we should but where you draw the line at law is a different
question right I think civilised discussion is what we should all aim for I don't think we
just throw rocks at people just for the sake of it but civilised and of course robust discussion is
important as well but we shouldn't therefore be you know denying people the ability to say
controversial things or things that are unpopular because it might offend some people i think
we have to be big enough to sort of allow that discussion to take place have the discussion um
and then also call it out you know when it's a bad idea if it's a really hurtful dumb thing if it's
expressed in a bad way i'm happy to call it out but it's just a question of not banning it and
certainly this this tendency to cancel uh people because of one or two or three things they've said
that might be inappropriate or wrong um you know I don't think it's the way to go and i think
a lot of australians are probably starting to react to that push well you and i i guess
believe in a greater truth don't we so we believe that there's something worth arguing
over uh you know if I'm offended well it's not really the point is it there's a greater truth
that I might be drawn closer to or that i might have to re reassess i wonder whether a
lot of it is identity politics where the it's not a greater truth that the truth sort of is
in me and you know it's all about my identity and defending myself and you can understand why when
people have debates about those big things like like religion I mean debates about religion
are very personal right you know if you're Catholic Protestant sometimes or or you know
different faiths or people of faith and no faith um it's good that we have those debates it's
good we have those discussions of course people are very passionate about it rightly so because
it's fundamental to who we are is what we believe about life on earth whether there's an afterlife
what that looks like all of those things you can never get away from that regardless of what your
views are that is those are the big questions of life and so it's right that we um discuss them
it's right that we debate them it's not right that it's robust but uh hopefully not as I always try
and do it respectfully but I don't think we should you know ban people because they do it slightly
less respectfully or in a way that i don't like sure on the Religious Discrimination
Bill then this is the freedoms issue that recently failed now it didn't come didn't
get voted on in the senate so you didn't have a direct vote on it but again these harm arguments
were raised in relation to it spuriously because the only statements of belief it protected
was non-vilifying statements of belief but what's your reflection on that how
important was that Bill in your view and should it come back it was important it is
important and yes it should come back and you know i mean the prime minister had a bit to say
about that uh in recent times i i look i i've been a big supporter of religious freedom publicly
and internally in some of those discussions and debates i think it was disappointing how it
transpired obviously it was largely um because of the vote of our opposition but of course there
were a few of our number who also sided with them and that was disappointing um the reason it's
important is because freedom of religion is a fundamental and bedrock right which i think has
been downgraded a little bit versus other rights right and we've seen that i think in some of the
discussions about anti-discrimination law and the like where um you know there's always going to
be a clash of rights that's that's true and and international law recognizes that and it it sort
of has ways of dealing with that the way our state and federal laws interact at the moment i don't
think it gets the balance quite right probably doesn't interact it just says freedom of religion
gets second place unfortunately in some cases and we saw that in tasmania didn't we uh with bishop
portland sure and there's been other examples so you know we that's why it's important because
people should be free to speak they should be free to uh you know when it comes to faith-based
schools and the like they should be free to choose those those are very important freedoms that need
to be protected and the second we downgrade those seriously um we are we are putting other freedoms
at risk for sure yeah i agree it's upgrading something that's been downgraded in the past what
about there is a criticism out there which I think can be addressed but for the good things that
the bill did uh there are some people who are concerned that it was going to appoint say
a religious freedom commissioner within the human rights commission what's the way around that
because people sort of go oh that's a real concern Is there a solution there look I mean I know
there was a lot of discussion and debate about that internally and externally i think i think
the the strongest argument for it is i mean you do when it comes to other human
rights such as the right not to be discriminated against in certain ways we of course
do have human rights commissioners who play a certain role so it made sense if you were going
down the path of basing the law in a similar way to have that discrimination commissioner
for it depends on who the discrimination commissioner is indeed it always does but
in the end the law needs to be robust enough too so that it shouldn't just rely on whether the
particular discrimination commissioner is you know the person you or i would choose or otherwise
yeah sure and for the record i don't think that was a deal breaker at all the good things
that Bill did were sort of outweighed it but of course the balance might have been flipped
when it got to the senate because a number of amendments were added that would have taken away
some of the protections that christian schools sort of rely on at the moment to uh to uphold
their ethos not in the ways that the media claim at all it's just such a a dodgy hit job on the
schools but in in positive ways in good ways uh you've said a few things about christian
schools and i'd like to unpack this i've got two quotes here once from 2018.
You said one of the
great things in australia is that parents have the opportunity to choose based on their religious
beliefs in many cases and institution which adheres to their beliefs be they might majority
or minority beliefs so the choice of a christian school is what you're referring to there then you
mentioned an issue of parents rights this is from 2017 speech he said I want to make one other point
in relation to safe schools and i think everyone remembers that program and parental choice when
you ask virtually any parent faced with some of the material around things like safe schools
curriculum whether a parent should know about that and have the opportunity to withdraw their
child from from those kinds of classes you get an overwhelming response in the affirmative as
senator fawcett has pointed out south australian senator in accordance with their rights under the
international covenant on the religious and moral instruction of their children parents should be
able to withdraw their children from those classes this is something worth fighting for so you raise
that uh issue do you think that in that context you think parental rights are under attack well
there's certainly there's certainly in some of the debates yes they are and they can be and
I think they are well worth protecting and the debate about um choice in schools faith-based
schools the like is is probably at the heart of that but it's not the only part of that the
reason it's important is because when i send my kids to the school that we've chosen um
i mean we are the educators of our children as parents we are the the primary educators of
our children it is our responsibility not the state and we are we are delegating that to others
we are effectively when we send them to the local state school or to the local catholic or christian
school or islamic school you are making a decision to hand over a bit of authority to trust others
uh with your your child's education now you're not you're not sort of saying that that is absolute
you are you are taking it on trust to some degree but of course those parental rights are
still paramount and and so that's reflected in international law it's reflected in part in
australian more but that could be stronger and certainly when we talk about whether or not
faith-based schools should be free to teach their religion and their beliefs that's that's
a that's an extension of parental rights because you know there's a lot of choice here right
there is a lot of choice you can you can choose even amongst christian schools we have great
choices you know you if you are you know a bible believing fairly conservative christian
there's a number of schools you can choose and then even in christian schools there are
schools that are christian schools but perhaps would would teach things fairly differently and
take a fairly different approach and so parents parents can look at that spectrum and say
well what is right for my child and what what most uh reflects my beliefs and so
that i think is such a fundamental thing and the debate about schools is very much an extension
of the debate about parental rights yeah um and so what about this argument then that people say
well if a faith-based school wants to teach a particular view a faith-based view then they
shouldn't get state funding um that's something that's come in uh recently as if you know they're
they're outliers and they shouldn't be allowed to exist that doesn't seem to be your view no it's
not and and I'm a big believer in in government funding for um non-government schools for
faith-based schools for other independent schools some are not faith-based but that that's that
extension of parental choice because what i would say is um you know taxpayers uh whether
they send their kids to a government school or non-government school they're paying their taxes
uh and then some are choosing for various reasons to make an additional contribution on on top of
their taxes for their child's education now that's that's true that's a choice they're making not
everyone can do that either financially or wants to do that but if you do do it for whatever reason
including as a result of your faith I think the government should come in behind you and that's a
that's a debate that really you know goes back to the 1950s and 60s when we first had these debates
around catholic system it was actually down the road from here in goldman where we had the golden
strike which started this debate and the menzies government first started funding these catholic
schools and then other other schools in the uk I think they have versions of religious
schools that are completely government funded where you can actually we can actually have a no
fee Catholic or Anglican school i understand so that's a very different model as a bit of a hybrid
model but certainly the government i think should support that choice and there's a diversity thing
here as well isn't there people who say that don't realize that well taxpayers are people who send
their kids to non-government schools christian schools catholic schools government schools you
know they're all taxpayers yeah so a taxpayer's funding you know should cover them all indeed and
if you look at the demographics of most of your low and mid fee um christian catholic schools
Islamic schools they will you will see that they are they this is not a wealthy set generally this
is true this is ordinary families in the suburbs you know paying a few thousand dollars sometimes
with great um trouble to do that I remember my my family putting six of us through Catholic
schools I know they found that pretty hard uh but they they would make the sacrifice very
committed to seeing us get that type of education uh i want to just dwell on this for a second
longer just to point out something you said at the start that the parents are the educator of
the child and i like the way you put it you're basically entrusting some of that to somebody
else for a time uh you know it's not unlimited it's a certain amount of trust and there needs
to be information passing between the two and it needs to be within boundaries uh is there
do you think a genuine uh shift away from that view particularly among some sort of let's say
more over the left side of of of the spectrum to actually resent the fact that parents ought
to be the primary educator of the child yeah i think so i mean and at the far left certainly
um you would say they would see the state is the educator of the child now that's not i'm
not going to assign that to all of my political opponents by any stretch but certainly parts of
the far left that and around the world you do see that you do see this debate and if you look at
authoritarian regimes um you know where my family came from absolutely it was the state that parents
had no rights uh in those circumstances and you know you wouldn't want to you wouldn't want to
sort of go to school and be speaking out of turn about you know what your parents might be saying
about the school all those sort of things but certainly i think there is part of the left and
i think it is the far left that would see that i once had a debate and i forget the name of the
individual she was an israeli politician i was on q a uh and we had this whole okay and i have
that in common indeed i've been a few times but she was effectively making the argument not only
on education but she was basically saying that families are the problem for children and the
state really should take on this role so there is that view that exists it's terrible isn't it
yeah let's move on to life um i just want to make a couple of observations here uh for people um
and that is that you've stood fairly firm on on life issues i've got some information about your
record here uh you've spoken against euthanasia in the senate uh you voted against congratulating new
south wales on legislating abortion to birth uh you voted yes to a motion supporting counselling
for women who were considering abortions um you voted yes to a motion stating that gender
selection abortion shouldn't be medicare funded um you i know are um a financial contributor to
a pregnancy support center why is that something that's sort of close to your heart that you've
decided to invest in i think it goes to our humanity doesn't it um you know so yeah carina
house is the organization a great organisation here in canberra and what that is is a really
practical response from people who believe in the sanctity of life saying um you know we will
make we will make it as as as easier choice or as accessible a choice i probably should say uh
for women who are doing it tough having tough pregnancies and so there is that genuine choice
which sometimes i think is is denied to people but you know it goes to the fundamentals around our
humanity you know i mean i as a christian i do believe we're created in the image of god uh
that means something that means that every life is precious and so we need to we need to take
account of that on a different track um covert uh this is something that really is exercising
a lot of people for good reasons and i i don't i don't laugh for that uh yeah i just laugh
because it's uh it's vexed um but what i wanted to ask you was and i appreciate this probably hasn't
affected the act as severely as it has affected other states i think here in canberra we've been
a little bit uh a little bit more circumspect about some of the rules and the restrictions
and that kind of thing but do you think that there has been uh any overreach uh tending into an
authoritarian kind of impulse at times on some of this covert stuff i'm thinking particularly
like vaccine passports maxine mandates and you know victorian style lockdown that kind
of stuff yeah what's your view on that yeah look i think there has been overreach um i think i
think clearly some of the the way some of those state borders were administered particularly
beyond the early stages i think and and the way the lack of compassion that was shown in in some
really tough circumstances i remember uh canberra uh later going up to queensland queensland that
was just awful awful couldn't even see her father that's right i mean there should have been
compassion shown and likewise with some of these mandates i mean i was in brisbane a little
while ago and i was a little confronted having to show that i've been vaccinated to go into a pub i
haven't experienced that in canberra i'm glad we haven't experienced that in canberra it's a whole
different mood isn't it it's a good thing yeah it is and i think the the decision was taken and i
agree with it and i don't agree with everything that this government has done but the decision
was and the judgment was made that people would largely get vaccinated without that type of
coercion and that was that proved to be true and i think it's it's proved true in other parts of the
world parts of australia as well that most people will choose the vaccine some will remain
hesitant and won't take up that opportunity but so the arguments that did exist early which
i may or may not have agreed with and certainly i think on some of the real mandatory stuff and
particularly i mean we're seeing it in wa i think still within with much of the workforce so yeah
i do have concerns about that type of approach i think i think we are better offering the vaccine
as we have making it widely available people can protect themselves and their families most people
absolutely are choosing that i've certainly done that but you know i don't think we want to
particularly an ongoing way be ostracizing people uh because uh of vaccine hesitancy you end
up with a almost a divided society don't you yeah yeah indeed and i disagree with someone but
there's no way to deal with it as i say and here i don't agree with everything this is government's
done but i think not going down that path for pubs and clubs and and even most uh workplaces i
think has has been the right call and so i support that one thing where i didn't agree with them
was some of the lockdowns i think some of the way that was applied i think was unjust and unfair
particularly a lot of small businesses and we saw i think at an extreme level in victoria with
you know the extent of those lockdowns and the length of those lockdowns, I don't think there
was a justification for that.
Longest lockdown in the world. Yeah. Why was the Government,
the federal government, a little bit reluctant and I think this is right. So Victoria obviously
went as far as they did, WA went as far as they did. Some would argue the whole nation went too far but
let's just take the outliers as obvious examples. Why was the government a bit reluctant to call
that out? Well, I think there were times where we did and you know I think I certainly think
in Victoria uh we saw that I remember speaking about I remember calling out Queensland uh when
they were not allowing people from the ACT to travel okay so you did I did okay that's worth it
I said that that was um because they lumped they said the act was was a risk and i said well
the ACT is not a greater risk than anywhere else in fact it was less of a risk and so I made that
argument I certainly argued around Victoria and other colleagues did as well so I know Josh
Frydenberg and others did so look you could argue the toss about whether that went far enough
and I know there's been a lot of debate about that but certainly I think we spoke up at
various times.
Is it fair to say that it would have been a really big call and probably very
difficult for the federal government to overrule the state government decisions on some of this?
Well I think constitutionally it would have been near enough to impossible okay yeah fair enough um
on one issue that's local I imagine if people are watching to this point they're probably going to
be Canberrans who are going to have you on their ballot hello to those who are not from Canberra
as well that's right they can follow along just here for the good times, there's an issue here
locally which you've been outspoken on um i moved to Canberra in 2014 and I remember thinking wow
the property market here is pretty competitive. That couldn't be less true today and
there's not been long 2014 – 2022. It's insane right now, insane. And even more so I
think than other parts of the country yeah um what's the solution well you should have
bought i think would I back in 2014. two years ago I nearly did and it just was
the worst decision I ever had um but look it's a serious issue for people but anyway indeed
but it is a serious issue and look the solution is is multi-faceted but clearly, land supply is a big
part of that so we've got this crazy situation here and there's a little bit of engineering
social engineering going on there where the ACT government are sort of forcing people
into apartments whether they want them or not now if people want to live in an apartment
great and there's I think there's a great place for them i'm all for a partner it's actually
an affordability thing now indeed i think they're given very little choice at the moment because
land is so scarce so you know they release a hundred blocks and seven thousand people put their
name down for those blocks so that shows you the mismatch so we've actually announced some policies
to release some commonwealth land um you know that's very important in the north of the city
old CSIRO land.
Is that likely to put significant supply into the system? Well we're
talking at least 2,000 blocks which is actually more than the act has been delivering in the last
few years I understand for standalone housing why is that uh is the ACT government so reluctant well
there's various arguments one would be that they they own a lot of the land and territory uniquely
they own a lot of this land it's territory land because of the uniqueness of our national capital
and leasehold system so um they do keep the prices up and that's good for their bottom line it's
not great for those buying and even former labor chief minister john stanhope has actually been
very critical of them for that approach and um you know in the end it does force a lot of people
over the border, it forces them further out or it forces them into housing that's just not suitable
and long-term rentals when people want to buy and I think the great Australian dream of a family
home in the suburbs you know I think that's worth fighting for you know I experienced
it growing up I've experienced it with my kids i've been very blessed to do that um i wouldn't
want to see mike it's a pro family thing isn't it I wonder whether there's some ideological stuff
going on a bit as well but people ought to live in apartments because it's greener or something
like this whether it is or not I don't know but I look at my siblings with kids and they have
land and they have and I realise it's actually a pro family thing it really matters I mean try
raising you know three kids in an apartment i mean look some people will choose that but very
few families would actually choose that if they've got genuine choices if they've got
genuine opportunity for something different okay this one's uh open to you in the sense
that you're in the parliament now let's say that that Zed could have one thing raised on the agenda
uh something brought forward a policy reform a change anything at all with no none of the usual
limitations that stop these things happening what what's an area for you maybe an underappreciated
area yeah well one that's underappreciated and I've had a long-term passion for is is adoption
and permanency and you know in Australia we used to have a situation where adoption occurred on a
reasonably regular basis now there were some bad practices that happened many years ago and partly
the reaction to that has been to really make it near enough to impossible to adopt uh kids and
what that means so that's a bureaucratic thing now is it not just abortions and things like that no
this is about this is about um because what we end up with is kids in in out of home care long term
yeah in foster care and often uncertain foster care often multiple foster care we're talking six,
eight, ten placements is not uncommon dreadful must have an awful impact on the kid yeah absolutely
I mean we when I was part of an inquiry we looked at it there were at the time it hasn't changed
much.
I think it's gotten worse since it was about it was about 50,000 kids in out of home care in
Australia and about 30,000 of those had been in in out of home care for more than two years and about
20 000 for more than five years so when you're getting to those circumstances they're in long
term out of home care we need to find a permanent home for them and new south wales has actually
embarked on a bit of a reform i did a little bit of work with the states and territories when i had
this portfolio for a short period of time but it's a lot more work to be done um because there are
there are couples crying out who can't have kids and would love to look after children and to
adopt uh but the various laws and bureaucratic processes make that am I right that in some states
is down to kind of like single digits of children being adopted like five yeah yeah basically you've
seen i i i recall some states where it was one or two in some years um in new south wales we see
it in the hundreds and that is by far the most now that's still a difference that's still a lot
less but if we compare it to the uk and and the us even on a population basis on a per capita basis
they do multiple times multiple times what we do and they do make they do give that opportunity to
and what is the key reform that would enable that the key is that you start early with permanency
planning when a child so you have to go a sort of parallel route and that's what they do in new
south wales where when a child is taken into care yes there is a desire to reunite them with their
biological parents if that's possible if you know if there's short-term reasons why parents can't
look after them of course I don't want to see I don't want to see that that bond broken if it
doesn't have to be but you do the permanency planning and that way if a conclusion is
drawn that the parents simply are not capable of at any time being able to look after those kids
you have to make a judgment you can't let it stretch out for years and in new south wales it's
sort of in in that sort of 12 to 18 month time frame and then decisions are made for pregnancy
just bite the bullet and do it yeah absolutely. Zed, for people who do live in Canberra,
why would they vote for you and not an independent? The reason I raise that is because
independents and minor parties are more popular than they've ever been right now and there
are contexts in which I'm fine with that just personally uh but we're in the ict it's a bit of a
different beast we have a different senate ticket why would they vote for you and not go for some
of those miners well a couple of reasons I mean I think I would point to the record which I could
go into detail on but I won't now but today but in terms of um most of most of the alternatives
in those minor parties are very much of the Green left I would say so that would be one very
strong reason and even the one or two who aren't I would say um a vote for them in a system where
you've got two senators where the Labor senate seat is basically locked up you have a situation
where you're either going to have a Liberal senator or you're going to have someone from the
Green left they are the really the owner that's the real choice right indeed it's labor and green
or labor and liberal indeed and unfortunately I guess voting for maybe a you know a real a
conservative-ish minor party or independent really just makes it more likely that a Green
or a Green left independent comes through and gets the seed yeah i think that's fair enough in
the act context you told me not to call you this but I actually want to because it sounds
great.
Senator, the Honorable Zed Seselja thanks so much for doing this. Thanks
very much for having me on Martyn, cheers..