Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

I second the motion and support the remarks of the Prime Minister. The opposition joins the Prime Minister’s expression of condolence to the Chipp family on behalf of the Liberal Party and the government. We extend our deepest sympathy to Don’s wife, Idun, their daughters Juliet and Laura and his children from his first marriage, Greg, Melissa, Debbie and John.

It is probably a shame for the memory of Don Chipp that there is no representative of the Australian Democrats in this House to analyse his life and his contribution. Suffice it to say that those of us who are not of his political party nevertheless recognise, in his passing from life, the passing of a very substantial Australian political figure. All political parties draw great comfort and strength from those who, in their lives and in their performance, become their party icons. We in the Australian Labor Party draw great strength from the memory of people like Ben Chifley and John Curtin. They are powerful influences on the lives of all those in the present parliamentary Labor Party, although of course none of us met them.

The Democrats are able to draw similar sustenance from the life and example of Don Chipp. He was a figure of considerable substance in the Australian political scene. He was a figure of substance before he became Leader of the Australian Democrats. He had had a substantial career, both as a member of the House of Representatives for some 17 years and as a minister of state in the then Liberal government, and he made a major mark on Australian politics during that period. He was Minister for the Navy at a point when, generally speaking, it was a terminal career appointment. Most ministers of the Navy subsequently found themselves no longer ministers as they struggled with the consequences and the difficulties that were experienced in the Navy, particularly the issues associated with various royal commissions on the collision between the aircraft carrier Melbourne and the destroyer Voyager.

Don Chipp survived those inquiries; nevertheless, they had their impact on him. In his book Don Chipp: the third man he wrote of the Voyager story. The whole Voyager story indicates how a parliamentary system can be abused for personal aggrandisement, revenge and pointscoring and to destroy reputations. It also shows how decisions not in the public interest can be made by politicians for expediency. One thing you can say about the life of Don Chipp was that he learned from every experience that he had in the parliament. His views were a work in progress. While he held those views very firmly, he changed as a result of the experiences he confronted when he was in public life. He listened to what people were saying to him.

I suspect he will be best remembered, from his ministerial career point of view, for  his role as Minister for Customs. As Minister for Customs he pursued what might be described as a liberal agenda. It was probably one of the reasons why he ceased to be a minister in the Fraser government, which was elected in 1975. In a period of time when Australians were thinking through the social institutions which governed them, his position was that Australians ought to be in a position where, within reason, they could see, read and think anything they chose to. He was within the strand of tradition in Liberal politics that most associated with 19th century liberalism. Mungo McCullum wrote of him:

He was an idealistic liberal. Nowadays that would be a contradiction in terms. He never lost his belief that idealism was the only real basis for politics in a civil society. To the end he played the game as he played his cricket—determined to win but always within both the rules and spirit of the code as he saw it.

I recollect as a youngster visiting parliament, sitting in the chamber and watching him debate with his Labor counterparts. It cannot for one moment be said that at any point of time Don Chipp had a flirtation with the notion of being in any way, shape or form favourably disposed to my side of politics. He was a vehement advocate of the government’s position against us—vehement and annoying.

I can recollect Jim Cairns, when he was Don Chipp’s trades spokesman counterpart, standing up in the Old Parliament House and being constantly heckled by Don Chipp to the point where Cairns was finally fed up with it. In personal debate, Jim was in many ways the most gentle of men but he leant across the table to Minister Chipp and said, ‘The honourable member knows nothing about this subject’—it was a trade matter they were discussing—‘as I have occasion to know, having had the dubious pleasure of marking his papers at Melbourne University.’ That would not have fazed Don Chipp for a minute. I suspect that when he experienced strong ideological disagreements with his colleagues confronting his liberalism with their conservatisim, he ultimately decided to go down the road of a third force. In his resignation speech in 1977, he said:

I wonder whether the ordinary voter is not becoming sick and tired of the vested interests which unduly influence the present political patterns and yearn for the emergence of a third political force, representing middle-of-the-road politics which would owe allegiance to no outside pressure group. Perhaps it may be the right time to test that proposition.

Michelle Grattan wrote of him:

Passionate, intense, emotional; he never felt, or did, things by halves. His personality was multi-coloured. His reactions were sometimes exaggerated. Deeply angered by a pretty mild reference I made in an article when he was still in the Liberals, he didn’t speak to me for several years; then he gave me a leak on his resignation from the party. His face evolved from matinee idol to its famous wrinkled form, outward sign of a complex inner journey.

He was a complex man. I could only know him, if you like, tangentially from those observations of him when I was a boy visiting parliament and then, ultimately, when I was a member of parliament in this chamber. I knew him briefly when I was a minister and he was the then Leader of the Democrats in the Senate. But you were conscious of a person with a powerful influence. He built a third party force in Australian politics based around centrist notions, that there was room between the very broadly based Labor and Liberal parties for another view of the world. It was a very challenging proposition.

We pride ourselves in this place on being a broad church. I have heard the Prime Minister use that expression and I have used it myself. I have described our side of politics as ‘a broad church’, and I have heard the Prime Minister describe his side of politics as a broad church as well. That is the conventional way that we tend to view our political parties, and it would suggest that, aside from single issue concerns, there would not be much room for a centre party. Don Chipp challenged that notion and he challenged it successfully.

It is very much to his credit that the political force that he created has lived on for at least 20 years from the time that he led it. That is considerable longevity and a demonstration that he created something beyond himself, not just of himself, and that he touched a note of some value and sensitivity in Australian politics.

As I said at the outset, we express our deepest condolences to members of his family. They can be proud of their husband and father. The Democrats can be proud of the man who founded and led them. They can draw sustenance from his memory and sustenance from his example.

See this speech in context