Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
Points of Order — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
[Volume:646;Page:15171] 
Points of Order 
Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have had recourse to Speakers’ rulings 127/2 and 127/3. I also hold this article here which was published in the  
Socialist Action 
 of 25 April 1975. I do not see from your ruling Madam Speaker how you can stop a member of this Parliament from saying this article is a fact just because Mr Locke does not now like it. He surely cannot find a haven in Speakers’ rulings 127/2 and 127/3 purely on the basis of his complaint. This article is his article. He has never denied that. So why are you seeking to stop members from referring to it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 We got to a point last week where I think there was an acceptable compromise and that was that Mr Locke certainly supported the takeover by Pol Pot but he did not support the later actions. I think that if members differentiate on that basis if they indicate that Mr Locke was supportive of Pol Pot’s takeover and say nothing else then they will not be breaching your ruling. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think it is relevant to the point that has been raised to indicate that the identity of Pol Pot was not known at that time and that the New Zealand Government 4 days after the takeover of Phnom Penh recognised the new Government and said in this House that it would be willing to extend humanitarian assistance to Cambodia in any way. Mr Rowling said 4 days after the fall of Phnom Penh: “I am pleased to reaffirm our readiness to help in the task of reconstruction and development that lies ahead of the Cambodian people.” 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am sure that Mr Locke’s comments are accurate. All that they prove is that other people were wrong as well. Mr Locke cannot claim not to have made a mistake at that time. All that the comments show is that it was a common mistake. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 My point remains. This article was written by Keith Locke. He has never denied writing this article. Clearly he wishes to recant now. But I am afraid he does not have sanctuary either in what the Labour Government did in 1975; after all it supported Robert Mugabe back then as well and we know what a disaster that regime has been. With respect one has to live by one’s political decisions and this House would be the lesser for it if somehow people could have their record in this Parliament totally exonerated or expunged because they do not like what they did. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Surely it is relevant that the name “Pol Pot” does not occur anywhere in the article that Keith Locke wrote and that in fact the name “Pol Pot” did not appear in Western media until some time after that. There was a change of Government in Cambodia and Mr Locke has never reneged on the fact that he welcomed a change of Government at that time. That is not the same thing as supporting Pol Pot. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table an article from the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 4 September 1980 during the term of a Government that Winston Peters was in with the headline “New Zealand to back Pol Pot at the UN”—that is the New Zealand Government which Winston Peters was a member of. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: All this is very helpful but not very much in terms of the ruling. I refer members back to Speakers’ rulings 127/2 and 127/3 which relate to personal statements that are given. So they relate to what was said in the personal statement. Members are not prevented from referring to the article. Mr Locke does not deny writing the article but he has given an assurance in his personal statement that he did not support Pol Pot. It is that accusation that members should not repeat because it relates to the personal statement. 
Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I should have raised this before you started on petitions but I just want to raise this point of order in respect of a ruling you have made on the presence of media in parts of the parliamentary complex. We respect your role as effectively the administrator of Parliament and the person who decides on its rules. We are however concerned that the decision was made and it is something of a departure from the normal historical process where a change in the rules around media access to Parliament would have been discussed with the political parties as we have discussed other issues such as broadcasting and so on. In this case that did not occur and we would be interested in getting your view on what opportunity there will be for the political parties to be part of the decision making around the access of media to Parliament since it is something that I think all of us value—the fact that in the New Zealand Parliament the media have had broad access and generally that has been without incident or trouble so the ruling is something of a departure. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and I am very happy to contact members after question time to explain the process and decision. I have met with the press gallery today and I think there has been some confusion. There is no banning of filming at all—there is in fact a reversion to the rule that applies throughout the place for members of the gallery to seek permission which has rarely if ever in my experience not been given. So I think there was a misunderstanding but I am happy to clarify that for members afterwards.