Points of Order — Personal Explanation—Keith Locke

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I seek the leave of the House to make a personal statement.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: What about?

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.