The Dawson By-Election

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31000, 4 March 1966, Page 12

The Dawson By-Election

The decisive defeat of the Government candidate, a sugar-cane farmer, Mr John Fordyce, in last Saturday’s by-election for the Federal seat of Dawson, in Queensland, raises doubts as to the stability of the ruling Liberal-Country Party coalition. It must lead also to speculation whether the mantle of Sir Robert Menzies is going to fit snugly enough for political safety on the shoulders of his successor, Mr Holt. It seems that Mr Holt’s speech in support of Mr Fordyce was heard with relief by Labour executives in Dawson. “ Sir Robert ”, said one of them later, “ would have left us without a feather to fly with ”, It is nevertheless premature to suggest, as the successful Labour candidate, Dr. Rex Patterson, has done, that Labour’s capture of a Country Party stronghold amounts to a vote of no-confidence in the Federal Government. There were well-defined domestic issues, mainly concerning the pace and pattern of industrial development, at stake in the 1 by-election—Queensland’s first in the Federal field for 27 years—so that voting there could not logically be held to reflect a shift of opinion throughout the whole of the Federal electorate. The sugar farmers in particular, resentful of what they consider neglect of their interests by the Federal Government, had been threatening for some time to transfer their allegiance from the Country Party to Labour. Dr. Patterson’s substantial majority suggests that many of them were as good as their word. Dr. Patterson, a former director of the northern division of the Department of National Development, turned to politics because of a sense of complete frustration. He promised the electors that a Labour Government would set up a separate Ministry of Northern Development to work in concert with the Queensland and Western Australian State Governments. There had been, in fact, much questioning of the priorities approved in Federal “ Develop the “ North ” programmes. It had been argued that the agricultural projects undertaken in the North were mostly wasteful, for the reason that climate, soil structure and isolation from markets weighed heavily against success for anything but the pastoral industry —itself vulnerable because of alternating periods of drought and flood. The Labour planners admit these difficulties, but insist that they can be overcome. The volatile and well-informed Dr. Patterson, campaigning with an almost missionary zeal, was apparently able to convince a majority of the cattlemen, the cane-growers and the dairy farmers—the latter fearful of the Australia-New Zealand trade agreement —that there could be* a place for them all in an expanded and reoriented economy of the North; that water could be taken to the drought-afflicted regions; and that the North’s mineral wealth must be fully exploited. Dr. Patterson argued that the Federal Government must take the initiative in the development of mineral resources. Only the Federal Government, he said, could find the necessary money, but it appeared to be waiting for the powerful metal cartels to take the major responsibility off its hands. Dr. Patterson’s resounding success in Dawson is expected to emphasise again the deep-seated schism within the Federal Labour Party. His candidature was sponsored by the party’s deputy leader, Mr Whitlam, who continues his campaign within the party for the rejection of Mr Calwell and his own elevation to the leadership. The Dawson result has been hailed as being as much a personal victory for Mr Whitlam as for Dr. Patterson. On this side of the Tasman, the result can be interpreted as a warning not to press too soon the advantages gained in the Free Trade pact. The fears of Australian dairy farmers can obviously become an important political issue.