Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion of condolence for Donald Leslie Chipp. I attended the state funeral in Melbourne on Saturday. I have been asked by several people since: was it a sad occasion? Of course, these occasions are always sad for close family and friends but, for the rest of the attendees there, I felt it was a celebration. It was a celebration of a life lived absolutely to the full, full of vigour, ideas and expression all the way through to his very deathbed.

I was quite startled by the range and variety of the people there. People were genuinely pleased that such a man had graced Australian public life and had made the contribution he did. The ceremony was typically Chipp, as far as I could see. It began with rock-and-roll, ended with jazz and in the middle was high-flown choral singing. It had profanity, laughter and tears. It had strong religious observance, idealism and great expressions of principle coupled with earthy recollections and, of course, warm and memorable family remarks and discussion. I ended up coming away feeling that I was glad I had participated in a farewell that was as much a wake, in the old-fashioned celebratory sense of a wake, as a funeral service and memorial.

Don Chipp was one of 26 senators that the Democrats have provided to this chamber over 29 years. He served as a Democrat senator from 1 July 1978 until he resigned on 18 August 1986 when he retired and did not stand again. He retired at the age of 61, which is actually the same age I will be when I retire from this Senate in 2008, so I will share that date with him. He served as a Democrat senator for eight years and two months. Ten Democrat senators have served for longer than that. He was certainly the person who put the stamp of his style on the Democrat party and its contributions to the life, decisions and vitality of the Senate as a chamber as well as, of course, to the broader political community. Right from the start, he presided over an extremely vigorous number of Democrat senators. I am sometimes surprised at the lack of a sense of history by journalists writing about the modern Democrats as if they are somehow different to the Democrats in those days, because there were vigorous disagreements sometimes, which even spawned resignations, sitting as Independents and disagreements that were as strong as that.

For my own part I regret having only known Don Chipp in the last 11 years of his extraordinary 81 years, but that is probably true of nearly every Democrat, including those with him right from the beginning. He was 54, I think, when he presided over the start of the Democrats and most people would have known him as an older man. It is a reminder to all of us, some of whom are a lot younger than that now, of what sort of contribution you can make as an individual in your older years. It is not the time to back off. You can make your contribution in many ways and I think in that sense it was a celebration of a life that was against ageism, against the concept that you retire and do not continue to make a contribution. I think that is a great characteristic of his.

In the way of politics, I saw him more often in company than in private. Living as I do in Western Australia, I saw him seldom, so I do not presume to have been close. I think all sorts of people will claim a closeness that is not merited and will seek to catch onto his coat-tails, but it is a very human thing when somebody of great character has passed on to wish to have something of them attach to you. I was an admirer. I claim him as an inspiration and an example. His greatest public characteristics were an enduring and consistent provocative advocacy and the rare ability to catch and hold attention. His private conversations with me were notable for an inquisitive and interested demeanour, a natural courtesy and respect for my argument. I think that, of all the memories I have of him, apart from his great forthrightness, the strongest are of his courtesy and respect. There is much to be said for that style.

I think Don Chipp deserves his national reputation and he deserves his place among Australia’s political greats. When history comes to be written of the last half of the last century, I think he will loom as large in that political pantheon as do people we respect and look back on in the first half of that century. He deserves to be up there, and you could tell that that was the view of many who attended his funeral. I want to particularly note commentary—I just picked them out—from such political luminaries and people to be admired for their national contribution as Andrew Peacock and Paul Keating. The remarks they made were quite extraordinary and complimentary.

Much has been said about our party being a party established on the basis of honesty, tolerance and compassion. It is true that that is a mark of the principles and virtues we attach ourselves to but, above all things, Don Chipp understood the world and he recognised that Democrats were as likely to be as dishonest to and intolerant of each other as were any other members of any other parties. I do not think people should have the view that Don Chipp’s relationship with the Democrats was not an extremely human interaction. One thing he did hang onto and fiercely advocated all his life, and it is something I particularly hold dear, was the right to a conscience vote. That is at the very core of the Democrats’ tradition, constitution and aspirations but, once again, you find amongst Democrat members that, when a parliamentarian does exercise their conscience and speaks their own mind, they are as likely to be assailed by certain members and participants in the party as probably anyone else who exercises their conscience in any other party. I think he continually emphasised that point because he was aware that it needed to be defended within the Democrats as much as within the political community as a whole. If there is anything that I hang onto from Don Chipp, apart from many small ‘l’ liberal beliefs, it is that right to a conscience vote.

With respect to that, in much of the commentary that has been seen in the newspapers, I am amazed how commentators sometimes behave as soldiers on a killing field—they will not stop firing until you have several bullets in your body. There has been some delight taken in being participants in the present troubles of the Democrats. I am one of those who happen to believe that the small ‘l’ liberal philosophy that underpins the Democrats is alive and well in Australia and that there is no reason why the party cannot resuscitate itself. The journalists concerned have picked on the GST agreement as a moment of great internal savagery in the Democrats. One of the strong memories I have of Don Chipp is him turning up in Canberra to very strongly support the senators and the leader who had negotiated that agreement. He backed to the full the efforts and the considerations given by Senators Lees, Murray, Woodley, Allison, Ridgeway, Greig and Bourne. Having backed us to the full for what we had done, he in turn backed to the full Senators Bartlett and Stott Despoja, who had opposed that agreement, which was exactly how it should be. Don Chipp not only lived the credo of tolerance and respect for a conscience vote but also he supported it and he supported Senators Bartlett and Stott Despoja strongly in their right to oppose the majority of the party room, as he supported the majority of the party room in the efforts they carried out.

I am one of four Democrats senators who have come from the great state of Western Australia. One of those four senators was former Senator Jack Evans. Jack is typical of many Democrats, perhaps typical of many senators, in that he stood four times for office and was successful only once. It is not easy to get into this place from any minor party or as an Independent. I am surrounded by some people who have had that battle on their hands. It is also not easy either, of course, if you are No. 3 or No. 4 on the major party tickets. Jack was a senator with Don Chipp in his party room from 5 March 1983 to 30 June 1985 and I thought it would be a fitting tribute to Don Chipp for me to read what I received from Jack, because I asked Jack to write his own words as a contribution to this condolence motion.

So, with the leave of the chamber, I will read what Jack wrote and quote it without change. He wrote:

With a treasure chest of life’s lessons, Don decided to enter politics with many of the ideals shared by the people who have inhabited our parliament over the past century.

A dedicated humanitarian, with an empathy for the average Aussie, he recognised that to achieve many of his goals he would have to compromise some of these ideals initially. His first lesson in politics!

He advanced within the Liberal Party and had an illustrious career mapped out for him—provided he was willing to toe the party line.

Then came the crunch!

Born of the frustration experienced by most politicians when party policies clashed with the ideals one brought into the parliament, this clash between team allegiance and conscience gnawed away at his conscience.

The only way forward was to resign—and maybe start again. The opportunity for a fresh start came when a group of like minded people invited him to form a new, different kind of political party.

One that allowed conscience votes, welcomed contrary opinions and sought solutions that disadvantaged as few as possible in the least harmful way.

He agreed to test the response from Australians all over the country as he promulgated this kind of political party.

The response was overwhelming as it took Don and the party founders along in a tide of support rarely seen for a new concept in politics.

Idealists like Don met and set out a path for a future Australian party which gave all its members an equal say in determining its policies and its office bearers and whose members all could vote in secret ballots to preselect their parliamentary representatives. Even the name of the new party was chosen by the members in a secret postal ballot.

Thousands joined this new party and voted on its new constitution and elected Democrat candidates for most seats for the 1977 federal election.

History recalls that Senators Don Chipp and Colin Mason were elected for a six year term and Senate candidates in other states received huge support but just missed out on a seat.

When Janine Haines joined this team in the Senate the trio started to make their presence felt in the parliament.

Other campaigns such as rafting the rapids of the Franklin River to prevent it being dammed won the support of many environmentalists and demonstrated to the major political parties that the support for the Democrats was substantial and that theirs was a voice to be heard in the parliament. At the next federal election the Democrats added two more senators to their team and at the same time gained the balance of power in the federal parliament.

The responsible use of this balance of power was the next big challenge and this was met with fear by the government and approbation by the opposition.

But neither major party was to have their way with this group of honest, trustworthy political lightweights.

Much of the legislation of that time was enacted following discussion in the Democrats party room at which all senators and key staff could have input and the responsible senator took a mandate into the negotiations with the responsible minister and the shadow minister.

Many Bills were modified to accord with Democrats policies following these negotiations and most agreed that the outcomes benefited the electors.

Don set a pattern which was to be followed by succeeding Democrats senators and MLCs in state and territory parliaments for years to come.

In the federal parliament Don had few peers when it came to political strategies and tactics.

His gut feel for the electorate and his knowledge of parliamentary procedures enabled him and his team to persuade their colleagues from one major party or the other to accept the Democrats point of view.

It became common knowledge within the opposition party of the day that if the member or Senator could not get their way within their own caucus that an alternative method may be to persuade the Democrats to move an amendment which reflected their view.

With his vast parliamentary experience Don quickly became a mentor to his many colleagues at federal and state levels. This was reflected in succeeding federal parliaments and in state and territory parliaments.

Parliamentarians from across the nation benefited from his wise advice and he developed leaders to carry the mantle after his departure.

Senators Janine Haines and Michael Macklin were major beneficiaries of this guidance when they became leaders of the party but many other successive leaders were very happy to follow the inspirational leadership he gave throughout his life. Many of Don’s legacies will remain, whether the Democrats are there to implement them or some other party or group carries the balance of power.

Probably the most significant is the right of a parliamentarian to have a conscience vote without the fear of losing preselection or of bringing opprobrium on themselves.

This will restore a greater degree of integrity to the parliaments. The Democrats had the safeguard which is lacking with ‘independent’ members and Senators and that is that the conscience voter must first disclose their voting intention to their colleagues and must then address the parliament, giving first the party ‘line’, followed by their own reasons for voting the way they intend.

Next would be the right of the Democrats parliamentarians to accept less than 100% of their demands to enable a satisfactory piece of legislation to be passed rather than to be blockers of all Bills with which they had some disagreement and could not win all their amendments.

They believed that the promise to never block supply was integral to the fundamental right of an elected government to govern.

This promise came out of the real and potential chaos which followed the sacking of the Whitlam government when its supply was threatened by the opposition of the day. Other legacies came from members and the parties which formed the Democrats.

The formulation of policies came from the Australia Party via Geoffrey and Lois Loftus Hills who established the secret postal ballot to follow adequate written discussion of all policies. Postal ballots enabled members throughout this vast continent to have their say having been given the opportunity to in-put at the deliberation stage via the National Journal.

This, together with secret postal ballots for parliamentary preselections ensured member control of the vital votes for influence within the party.

Vale Don Chipp.

Leader, inspiration to many and a true democrat.

That is from former senator Jack Evans.

I will conclude, as I should, by saying that I honour former senator Don Chipp’s memory. I honour his life and celebrate his commitment and his place on the Australian public life stage. And I wish, of course, to extend my sympathies, and those of my wife and my office, to Idun, to Don Chipp’s six children and to all their families, close relatives and friends.