The meaning and significance of the balance of power was discussed in chapter three of this thesis. This part of the chapter examines how the DLP excised the balance of power. This exercise of the balance of power in the Senate is significant because the DLP was the first party to be able to exercise this power.
Until 1964 the DLP did not hold the balance of power in the Senate. The best it could do was to negate a motion of the Senate from 1955 to 1958. It shared this role with an independent from 1961 to 1968, so the DLP with the support of the independent Senator could use its numbers to negate a motion moved in the Senate. The motion could be merely procedural or it
could be legislative. A tied vote in the Senate, for example 30 ayes and 30 noes, results in the motion being defeated.
From 1 July 1968 until its massive defeat at the 1974 double dissolution election, the DLP held the balance of power in the Senate. It improved its position further in late 1970 with the election of the Party’s fifth senator. Having five senators made the DLP an ‘official party’ whereby it got more resources and could institute debates on ‘matters of urgency’. Also by this stage it was represented on just about every Senate and joint committee.
Often the DLP supported the Coalition government in divisions in the Senate. There were times however when the DLP voted with the Opposition. For example, the 1970 States Receipts Duties Legislation and voting in this way, helped the DLP immensely to win Gair’s seat in the Senate elections that year.
As the DLP soon learnt, for a minor party to exercise the balance of power it had to have the support of one of the major parties. From time to time DLP Senators would propose
amendments or measures and not get the support of either major party and the divisions lists in the Senate show the DLP Senators voting on one side (having four or five votes) and the Liberal and Labor parties voting on the other side (55 or so votes.)
An example was the DLP’s amendment to the Address in Reply in early 1970. In the Address in Reply debate both the ALP and the DLP proposed amendments to the government’s legislative agenda. The DLP moved an amendment first and the ALP followed a while later, both amendments were very similar. The ALP refused to support the DLP amendment because in their view a minor party such as the DLP had no right to instruct the government as to what should or shouldn’t be in its legislative program for the parliamentary session. The DLP in turn did not support the Labor amendment when it was voted upon, resulting in neither amendment succeeding in the Senate. This action showed the hatred between the ALP and the DLP was still very strong some 15 years after the Split.
Another example was the DLP proposal to appoint a royal commission into primary industry in Australia. This proposal, when debated, only gained the support of the DLP Senators. Labor and Coalition Senators all voted against the proposal.
After the Labor Party was voted into government in December 1972 with a majority of nine in the House of Representatives, the DLP still held the balance of power in the Senate, where the party line up was ALP 26, Liberal Party 21, Country Party 5, DLP 5 and Independents 3. Therefore, assuming the DLP voted with the Country Party and Liberals on a motion, the combined vote would 31, compared to a combined vote of 29 for the ALP and independents. Therefore, the Opposition could win divisions with a majority of two.
This situation could affect the government’s legislative agenda. Furthermore, this would be the state of affairs until 1 July 1974 – just over 18 months away. At that point in time a senate election would have taken place and the government’s situation may have improved.
However, as Jim Odgers (1991:44) notes ‘the Senate was soon to show its resolve and
independence.’ It did this by defeating a number of pieces of legislation that were designed to enact key points of the Government’s 1972 policy speech. The Government claimed it had a mandate from the people, which Senators elected two or five years before that should have recognised and respected.
The end result was the Labor government was able to gain a double dissolution of both houses and the DLP senators all lost their seats. Thus, the DLP went from holding the balance of power to having no representative at all in the Parliament.
Just as with the allocation of second preferences, to the Liberal and National Parties coalition, the DLP never seemed to demand anything for using its balance of power to support legislation or other motions before the Senate. This is yet another example in what Cain (1995:8) noted as the DLP demanding ‘so little in return for what it was able to deliver’. This is very true in 1973 and early 1974 with the DLP and the Labor government. The DLP’s approach to the Labor government was defeat and not negotiation or compromise with the usage of the balance of power. This is particularly significant with regard to the balance of power and key items from the government’s policy speech.
The DLP used the balance of power as a ‘veto power’ and not as a tool of negotiation or compromise. Henderson (1975:78) has commented that:-
The DLP seldom took the initiative in the Senate – especially after 1972 when Labor came to power. Indeed in 1973 and early 1974 the DLP’s position became blurred with that of the other opposition parties in the Senate.