Points of Order — Personal Explanation—Keith Locke 
Points of Order — Personal Explanation—Keith Locke 
[Volume:646;Page:15122] 
Points of Order 
Personal Explanation—Keith Locke 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise this point of order because in some ways you have dishonoured your ruling at the start of the House today. As of late there has been on the part of a member of the Green Party a tendency to get up to deny what is a fact and to protest that he did not say something when the evidence that he did has been tabled—and tabled for a number of years now. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I have not finished my point of order yet. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will hear this point of order then we will take a response to it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is typical of it without even being— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is unnecessary. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am being interrupted already. The fact is that as one reads the last paragraph of the article that has been tabled which is headed “Cambodia liberated: victory for humanity” one sees a boast in it in the second to last sentence that the writer of that article one Keith Locke cannot deny. In short he supported it. If we are for ever to be challenged by his denying what has been tabled in this House and substantiated not just by me but by other members from across the House and across the political divide then we surely will bring this House into disorder. No one should be asked to apologise or withdraw for the allegations against Mr Locke because he did write that. They are his words. Like all politicians we live with what we have said in the past and so should he. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It is a longstanding point of order in this House that a member’s word is to be taken. That word has been given. What is more by way of a personal explanation my colleague Mr Locke explained that there is a big difference between welcoming a change of regime when an oppressive regime is turfed out and then later supporting what the new regime turns out to do. That is an entirely consistent position. It has been pointed out more than once in this House and the member’s point of order is a fabrication. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is worth recording that yesterday I did not accuse Mr Locke of supporting genocide. I said he supported the Pol Pot regime and that headline seems to me to be conclusive as to that fact. One may of course change one’s mind subsequently about that in the light of experience. Now Mr Locke does place us in difficulty and I said to him after the House rose when he approached me somewhat upset that I could have taken a breach of privilege given his claim that he never had supported the regime at all which seems to me to be denied by the fact. The difficulty with the personal explanation is that it then becomes a means of denying what seems to be an unavoidable fact. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 This is a very small typed note but it reads this way in the words of Keith Locke: “When they discover the real gains that the revolution brings for the Indochinese people they will start to question many things.” Now there may have been no gains at all which is a fact—in fact it was an absolute disaster—but Mr Locke wrote those words. He supported the regime and he cannot get up and gainsay it now and ask that his verbal word be taken while his written word is not. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 There is a very big difference between supporting an incoming regime as having got rid of a repressive earlier regime and supporting that new regime full stop when it turns out that it is doing outrageous things. I supported the election of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe because of the regime he replaced. I do not think anybody could legitimately accuse me of supporting what Robert Mugabe has done since. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It has been long accepted in this House that once a member’s word is given then that must in fact prevail when it comes to these matters. However I would also note to members that when leave is sought to make a personal explanation there is always the opportunity for members to deny that leave. So there is a balance there. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to make a personal statement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What about? 
RON MARK 
: On positions taken on Mugabe—my position on Mugabe. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] Would members please settle. Interventions like the one that was made before come very close to trifling with this House. I warn members of that.