Importance Of Senate Vote In Australia

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26396, 14 April 1951, Page 7

Importance Of Senate Vote In Australia

(Special Correspondent N.Z.P.A.) (Rec. 8.30 p.m.) SYDNEY, April 13. Though most of the heat generated in the Australian Federal election campaign comes from candidates for the House v ® e P resen^a ,^ ves > *t is already apparent that the decision in the Senate will have the most profound effect on Australian policy and economy during the next three years. In the last 16 months the Labour majority in the Senate has thwarted many of the plans of the Menzies-Fadden Government. Unless there is a considerable landslide in the Government’s favour, the result of the Senate election in a fortnight may well be a deadlock, which means that Labour obstruction in the Upper House can proceed. In Australia, the Upper House is elective, with 10 senators representing each of the six States. Only in the case of a double dissolution, as at present, are all 60 senators voted for. Normally a senator is elected for six years, half of the House retiring on each election day.

The complexity of voting for the Upper House, coupled with the system of proportional representation introduced two years ago by the Labour Party, has led to many apparent anomalies. If the Liberal and Country Party coalition holds its gains of December, 1949, and secures about 51 per cent, of the total vote, the result will be 30 Government and 30 Opposition Senators in the Upper House—a position not much better for the Government than the present Labour domination. A swing of 3 per cent, in the Government’s favour would be necessary to assure the non-Labour parties of a working majority. Liberal and Country Party men are hopeful of a victory in Queensland, where, they say, a swing of 13,000 voters is all that is needed to return six Government to four Labour Senators. The delicacy of the . .position is indicated by the fact that though 10 Senators are to be elected in each State, no party has nominated more than six members in the Senate team. On the proportional system it would be virtually impossible for any party to secure a majority of seven to three. From here on the Senate election assumes the appearance of a lottery. The political affiliations of the candidates do not appear on the ballot paper and the names of the candidates are so little known that many candidates receive help from unexpected quarters. In Australia voting is compulsory—but to discharge this obligation an elector has only to place a number opposite the name of every candidate on the paper. Thus 24 names on the New South Wales paper will be numbered from one to 24. The parties ballot for position on the paper—and in New South Wales the Communist Party has secured first place. This is regarded by other party officials as tantamount to a “gift” of about 20.000 votes to the Communists, for on past performances about that number of careless or ill-informed voters/wiU fill in their papers by numbering the candidates straight through as the names afe printed. The Government parties are not too displeased, however, for they expect to hold their own in New South Wales, while in the key State of Queensland, their team has drawn first place. Adding to the element of chance fs the high number of informal votes usually recorded on Senate papers, due

to the number of names offering. Tn December, 1949, in New South Wales, there were 222,576 informal votes out of 1,848,572 cast; This position is likely to be repeated—though as little as 13,000 votes might mean victory or defeat for the- Government. The system of counting is long and complicated. First of all votes are counted and the total is divided by the number of vacancies, plus one. Any candidate receiving this total or more qf first votes is automatically elected and his second preferences are then distributed to tne other candidates. These votes have only a fractional value of the first preference and the resulting complications spin out the counting time over days, and sometimes weeks.