No other position is as attractive, as Labor holds the three ACT House of Representatives seats and, in coalition with the Greens, the ACT government. His elected position also enables him to play a prominent role in the federal government as Minister for International Development and the Pacific.

Undoubtedly, many of his well-known political values do not correspond with majority ACT opinion. These include his views on euthanasia and same-sex marriage, as well as refugees and climate action.

Yet he has been targeted without success, like his Liberal senator predecessors, in several election campaigns. In 2019 he withstood a major effort against him.

There are many general lessons about Australian politics in this apparent conundrum.

First, there are structural issues. The ACT only elects two senators, meaning the quota for election is just one-third-plus-one of the votes on offer at any territory-wide election.

Secondly, as the two major parties dominate Australian politics, it is extremely unlikely that each of them will not win a seat under such circumstances.

Thirdly, the major parties effectively decide who our representatives will be in such circumstances. Sitting ACT senators must only maintain the support of their parties. Their known views may be at odds with those of their constituents, but party loyalty among voters means they will continue to be re-elected given the low quota.

The Seselja affair also provides general insights into other aspects of Australian politics.

Personal or free/conscience votes have a long and complex history. This is because a small number of issues, mainly to do with life, death and sexual morality, cut across the major-party divide - and opinions are often deeply held by MPs on both sides. These differences within otherwise united parties cause regular controversy.

The aim for political parties themselves during such conscience votes is to maintain party unity, rather than recognise personal conscience. These votes used to be a major problem for Labor, but now there is more debate among Liberals as well, as Catholics - like Tony Abbott and Kevin Andrews - have moved, with other members of their religious community, across to the Liberals.

These issues are usually played out in direct parliamentary votes on the matters in question, but some are played out indirectly. This complicates the debate, as it has in the case of territory rights and the connection between parliamentarians and their constituencies.

Where does all this leave Senator Seselja?

The Canberra Liberals are seriously divided between moderates and conservatives. On territory rights, the ACT Liberal opposition, led by the moderate Elizabeth Lee, supports the community campaign to allow ACT citizens to make their own decision on euthanasia. This division of opinion between Seselja and Lee is unlikely to be resolved soon for the reasons discussed above, including personal conscience.

The type of campaign which Seselja, a former ACT opposition leader himself, is running against the ACT Legislative Assembly and government, stressing its small size and alleged immaturity, is likely to hurt the Canberra Liberals, even if some of his campaign claims mismanagement by the Labor/Greens government.

Seselja's position is made more comfortable by the fact that federal Labor is not totally united on the issue either, for similar conscience reasons. Some federal Labor senators assisted in blocking territory rights in past Senate votes, such as in 2018 (the David Leyonhjelm bill).

Seselja is also comfortable within his own Catholic community, in the ACT and elsewhere, on this issue. In NSW and Queensland, the two states where anti-euthanasia legislation remains, the Catholic Church is campaigning strongly for the status quo. Should the ACT be given the power to legislate for euthanasia, the Catholic Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn would likewise campaign strongly against change, almost certainly with no effect given the territory's current political alignments.

READ MORE:

Seselja and his Catholic supporters are thought to be close to church authorities. That helps him prevail within the church hierarchy on some issues, including on refugees and asylum seekers, but not on climate action, where community pressure is irresistible. On the interaction between euthanasia and territory rights, Catholic voters would be too divided to cause him any major problems.

But a key plank of Seselja's argument has steadily weakened. Back in 1997, when Kevin Andrews' federal bill overriding the Northern Territory euthanasia legislation prevailed, there were many Australians, otherwise uncommitted, who did not support small territories taking the lead on such a contentious issue. Now four states - Western Australia, Victoria, South Australia, and Tasmania - have legislated for euthanasia, and in Queensland and NSW the issue is coming to a head.

Australia is coming close now to having a settled, non-partisan, pro-euthanasia stance, as South Australia and Tasmania have Liberal governments. If an Australia-wide position comes to pass, the impotence of the territories will become absurd.

The final lesson about Australian politics from this affair is that internal ACT issues have no leverage whatsoever nationally. If the Prime Minister wanted to resolve the issue, he could do so. But he won't, because it is a very low priority for him.

Only if it develops into an issue with adverse national ramifications will he act. He knows that at the next federal election, barring a miracle, Seselja will hold the Senate seat and the Liberals will continue to be frozen out of ACT House of Representatives seats.

Proponents of territory rights must make them a substantial national election issue if they are to succeed.