The DLP preferenced the Coalition at all times even if the candidate was a ‘trendy Liberal’ (a group of Liberals who were opposed to most of the DLP policies on censorship and similar social issues). The DLP would never preference a Labor candidate even if he or she had strong family values, was anti-abortion and supported a strong defence force. The DLP preferences were very decisive in close electorates; a significant number of marginal seats were won by the Liberal Party with DLP second preferences.
This allowed the Coalition to take DLP preferences pretty much for granted - the usage of second preferences is a very powerful weapon for a minor party especially a party such as the DLP that does not have parliamentary representation in the lower single member chamber. Poor usage of the very powerful second preference vote allocation also led to the DLP’s demise. (Kane 1987))
A DLP press release of 17 November 1972 (DLP Vic 1972D) proudly announced for the forthcoming election, ‘the allocation of DLP preferences in Victoria will follow the same pattern as in previous elections for the past 17 years. All sitting Liberal and Country Party MPs . . . will receive DLP preferences as usual.’ Maintaining the idea of hate or revenge for the ALP the press release went on to state that, ‘the DLP is more determined than ever that ALP candidates should receive no help from DLP preferences because a wide range of ALP policies are dangerous and even more unacceptable than in the past.’
This was in spite the Victoria DLP sending a letter dated 6 November 1972 to all candidates and campaign secretaries advising that preferences will be discussed by the Party’s Central Executive at its next meeting on 10 November. The letter went on to request any views as to the allocation of preferences. The second preferences decision however appeared to be a foregone conclusion (DLP Vic 1972C).
Table 12: The Power of DLP Federal Preferences 1955-1977
General Election Seats where some or all preferences Distributed
Seats Won after DLP Preferences Distributed
Seats where First preferences lead reversed
by distribution of preferences Won by Coalition Won by Labor 1955 16 4 (4 Vic) 5 1 (1 Vic)
1958 31 21 (10 Vic) 8 8 (4 Vic, 1 Qld, 3 WA*) 1961 37 27 (15 Vic) 8 7 (3 Vic, 2 NSW, 1 QLD, 1 WA) 1963 24 19 (9 Vic) 3 8 (2 Vic, 1 NSW, 2 QLD, 2 WA**, 1 Tas) 1966 31 21 (8 Vic) 5 5 (2 Vic, 1 NSW, 2 QLD) 1969 40 28 (11 Vic) 3 12 (3 Vic, 3 NSW, 3 QLD, 2 WA, 1 Tas) 1972 48 29 (15 Vic) 9 9 (6 Vic, 1 NSW, 2 QLD) 1974 31 8 0 1 (1 Vic) 1975 22 2 1 1977 46 12 (12 Vic) 3 None
Note: In 1977 the Australian Democrats contested the election for the first time and their second preferences helped elected a number of candidates. The second preferences of the Australian Democrats will be considered as part of the discussion on that party. In that election, the DLP only contested seats in Victoria.
Table 14 shows the power of DLP second preferences. The Liberal Country Party coalition won the close 1961 and 1969 elections with small majorities thanks to DLP preferences. In the 1972 elections, the ALP majority would have been greater if the DLP second preferences were not a decisive factor in the 23 electorates won by the coalition in that election.
Kane (1989:160 and 1980:1:2/49) speaks of a ‘road block’ strategy of blocking the ALP’s path to Government by deliberately second preferencing the Liberal and Country Parties.
‘Out of touch’ DLP Senators were perceived as old male
‘fuddie duddies’
At the later stages of the DLP’s life, DLP Senators were often referred to as a group of old ‘fuddie duddies’ because of their respective ages. The following table shows the ages of the DLP senators over selected years. All of these senators were actively involved in the split of the ALP in 1955.
Table 13: DLP Senators Age at specific years of DLP’s life Senator Year of Birth Age 1955 Age 1964 Age 1970 Age 1973 Age 1974 Gair 1901 54 63 69 72 73 McManus 1905 50 59 65 68 69 Cole 1908 47 56 Kane 1908 47 56 62 65 66 Byrne 1910 45 54 60 63 64 Little 1914 41 50 56 59 60
Note Cole lost his seat in 1964 and died in 1969 at the age of 61.
Table 15 shows in the first part, the age of the DLP Senators in 1955, the year of the Split and in 1964, the election of Gair and McManus. In this part of the table the ages of the Senators looks quite respectable, in 1955 they were all under 55, Little being 41 and in 1964 they were all under 65, with Little and Byrne in their early 50s.
In the second part, the table shows the ages of the DLP senators in 1970 which was the election of Kane and the Party’s best Senate result. The table then shows the ages of the DLP Senators in 1973 when McManus replaced Gair as leader of the party and finally the table shows the ages of the Senators in 1974 when the Party was wiped out in the double dissolution election. At this point in time the DLP Senators were showing their age, in 1970 Gair was still leading the party and running for the Senate at the age of 69.
As a group, the DLP Senators and senior party officials could be seen as ‘out of touch’ old men – grand dads in grey suits and this presented an image problem for the DLP. The party was not seen as a party for young people.
An example of how far ‘out of touch’ from the younger generation was the party’s continual attack on university students. The impression from these attacks was that university students were a group of left wing radicals who spent their entire time involved in violent
demonstrations. The state president of the DLP (Victoria) in his opening speech to the state conference advised delegates that the ‘university battle as a whole is not over yet’ (DLP Vic 1972A:2). He went on to advise the delegates, that in universities:-
A bunch of spoilt kids, who have never known deprivation or want are seeking to enjoy the new thrill of imitation poverty, by copying each other’s uniform outfits of tattered jeans and bare feet, which are supposed to distinguish and set them apart from the law-abiding ‘squares’ who support them.
For good measure, he added;
And it becomes sickening in the extreme, when these tertiary delinquents are urged on and encouraged by some middle-class academics, who themselves have always been cradled in the security and comfort they now profess to despise (DLP Vic 1972A:3).
This outburst was made in August 1972 notwithstanding that not quite four months later, a Federal election was to be held in December. A number of those ‘tertiary delinquents’ being over 21 would have been enrolled to vote, as would have been the ‘middle class academics’. The rather emotive outburst ignores the fact that the majority of students would even back then have been at university to gain qualifications and graduate. It is difficult to see how the dress standards of those students would have added any value to the debate. This shows the inability of the DLP to relate to young people, many of whom would not have remembered the ALP split of 1955 and the fear of Communism that then prevailed.
As Gerard Henderson observed:-
Age also played its toll – the Senators aged as did the voters. The Party could not inspire any significant support among the young (Henderson 1975:88).
If the best the DLP could do was to refer to young people as ‘tertiary delinquents’ and ‘spoilt kids’ it is not surprising that young people did not take to the DLP.
This ‘agedness’ of the DLP senators also had an impact on the Party’s leadership and electoral prospects. These issues will be discussed next.