Australia’s Rival Labour Parties

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30677, 17 February 1965, Page 12

Australia’s Rival Labour Parties

The election of Mr F. P. McManus, the Democratic Labour Party leader, to the Federal Senate introduces an incalculable factor into Australian politics. That his success on a recount has deprived the Menzies Government of a clear majority in the Senate is of least importance, except as a reminder that even Sir Robert Menzies can make political miscalculations. The Australian Labour Party has good reason now not to risk a double dissolution by defeating the Government in the Senate, even if it had the support of the two D.L.P. Senators and the one Independent who hold the balance. What is important is the revelation that the D.L.P. did not start to die with Archbishop Mannix but is even gaining strength. Its electoral support, now reflected and reinforced by its strong position in the Senate, is a warning to both the major parties. The A.L.P. must know that it has little chance of success while so many of its former supporters prefer maintaining a splinter party to accepting Leftwing dominance. On the other hand the Liberal and Country Parties must be conscious that the D.L.P. is ready to sink other differences with the A.L.P., and that a reunited Labour Party controlled by moderates would oust the present Government. The aim of the D.L.P. is, first and foremost, reconciliation of the Labour factions and the overthrow of the Left wing. Its success would be a triumph for patience and faith.

The recount was significant, too, for the light it threw on the complicated method of electing the Senate, including such oddities as the random sampling of votes to determine the allocation of preferences. Sir Robert Menzies freely admits that he does not fully understand how it works, and most Australians would understand it hardly at all. It is clear that the system, devised in 1955 by Dr. Evatt, is cumbersome and tends to produce a deadlock in the Senate. That is not in the interest of good government, and some change should be made. If, at the same time, the elements of chance could be removed, so much the better, not because they give minorities some representation but because they could easily defeat the public will.