Speaker’s Rulings — Personal Explanations—Member’s Word Must Be Accepted

Keith Locke has raised with me recent accusations, made in the House, that he supported Pol Pot. I remind members that Mr Locke has, by way of personal explanation, given an assurance to the House that he did not support the actions of Pol Pot after he took over Cambodia. Mr Locke’s word must be accepted, and it is improper for members to continue to make such accusations. They are clearly disorderly, and the Chair will intervene to protect the member.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have sought in your ruling to differentiate between what has been said by way of allegation about Mr Locke’s past political activities and how he perceives himself now. I hope you do not mean to say that we cannot say that what is a fact, and is known by everybody, continues to be a fact—that he did support Pol Pot. Whether the member supported what Pol Pot did after he came to power is a matter of the member’s judgment, but he could have presaged that if he had known what he was dealing with at the time. He attempts to exonerate himself from his misjudgment, and he seeks this House to do, by way of its rulings and Standing Orders, something that no one in this House has been asked to do in the past: to deny that a fact is a fact.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: Point of order—

No—I have given my ruling on this. I would also refer the member to Speakers’ ruling 127/2 and those rulings that follow it. This matter has been extensively ruled upon in the past, and my ruling is consistent with that ruling.