Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) Link to this
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) Link to this
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) Link to this
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) Link to this
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) Link to this
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) Link to this
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) Link to this
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 SPEAKERAll 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.