4. Disability Issues—EmploymentGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister for Disability IssuesDisability Issues—Employment4. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What events has she recently hosted regarding the employment of people with disabilities?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Disability Issues): This morning Minister Jackson and I hosted the launch of the new disability employment support practice guidelines a best-practice guide that details how to ensure any disabled person who wants to work has opportunities to receive skilled support to get work. I want to acknowledge the vision and commitment of the New Zealand Disability Support Network who brought the sector together to develop these guidelines and those groups from across the sector that took part in developing the guidelines. The views experiences and aspirations of disabled people have been included as it's often said Nothing about me without me."Greg O'Connor: Why are the employment practice support guidelines important?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: New Zealand is missing out on the economic and cultural contribution that disabled people can make. Only 25 percent of disabled people are in employment yet 74 percent of non-working disabled people want to work. Even more concerning the number of disabled young not in any kind of employment education or training is about four times higher than their non-disabled peers. We need to accept we have a problem when we were told today at the launch that disabled university graduates have the same employment outcomes as non - disabled high school graduates. While there are some disabled people who can't work this gap is too wide. This is why improving the employment experience of disabled people is key.Greg O'Connor: What are the employment practice support guidelines?Hon Tim Macindoe: Are you going to ask her what she had for breakfast?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The guidelines outline best practice for employment support services working alongside both disabled people and employers to tailor work opportunities to address their respective needs. By setting clear expectations the guidelines will help improve disabled people's employment outcomes. [Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! Sorry—I'm going to ask the member to resume his seat. I think Mr Macindoe Mr Hudson and Mr Robertson could all show—all show—some respect for this question. I'd ask the Minister to restart her supplementary answer.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Thank you Mr Speaker. The guidelines outline best practice for employment support services working alongside both disabled people and employers to tailor work opportunities to address their respective needs. By setting clear expectations the guidelines will help improve disabled people's employment outcomes. The guidelines make absolute sense. It is a great tool but it is only part of what needs to happen. I can assure the disability sector and New Zealand that there will be more work in this space and I'm sure the general public will take it more seriously than what Tim Macindoe is doing right now.Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take great offence at that comment and would ask the Minister to identify whatever it was that I was supposed to be doing.Hon Grant Robertson: I can easily identify for Mr Macindoe—he suggested that the questioner should ask the Minister what she had for breakfast. That's disrespectful to people with disabilities Mr Macindoe.Hon Tim Macindoe: The Minister of Finance is picking up on an interjection that happened some time before the Minister made her gratuitous comment. The two are not related and I continue to take offence at it.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Speaking to the point of order the member was also inferring that this was a waste of space in terms of being asked in this House.Hon Tim Macindoe: Mr Speaker I attended that breakfast this morning in my capacity as the ACC spokesperson for the Opposition. I take the issue very very seriously and I continue to take offence at the suggestion.SPEAKER: I'm not prepared to require a withdrawal from the Minister. There was an interjection from the member and the member in front of him during the answer. I did not hear the detail of it but it clearly did cause offence. The interjection caused offence and the fact that the Minister was a supplementary late in responding to it was probably inappropriate but not to the point where I'm going to require its withdrawal. Everything—everything—as part of this exchange is on the record.Hon Gerry Brownlee: The longstanding convention in this House has been that if a member takes offence then that should be accepted and the person causing the offence should do something about it. Now for a Minister who—we know it's not an equal contest in here; it always is. We get to ask the questions and then the answers can range across a broad range of topics etc. etc. For a gratuitous flick like that at the end of a question I think it's completely out of order and a gross misuse of the opportunity to stand with the microphone in front of the full House and anyone who happens to be watching.Hon Grant Robertson: In the last Parliament rulings made by the previous Speaker indicated that it is no longer the case that it is automatic that offence if it's taken requires a withdrawal and apology. That ruling was made by the previous Speaker.SPEAKER: And in my experience for the vast majority of my career it's not been automatic. We're not you know petals. People need to be a little bit robust when these things are occurring and I think especially when people are involved in interjecting the fact that there is something which comes back in their direction is part of the ebb and flow of this House. The Hon Tim Macindoe I think wants to add further.Hon Tim Macindoe: Thank you Mr Speaker. The point I was making is that in her comment the Minister was suggesting that I was doing something now. At that point—and in fact at least for a minute beforehand—I had said nothing there was certainly nothing about my body language that could have caused her any concern. Members of the public watching this exchange on the television will only have seen the Minister speaking and would presumably come to the conclusion that I was doing something that was offensive. The point I'm making is that I certainly wasn't and I was asking the Minister to explain what it was that was offensive and because I found it an offensive suggestion I asked her to withdraw it.SPEAKER: OK. Right well I—Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Speaking to the point of order can I just—SPEAKER: Well I don't think there is one.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: OK.Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker—SPEAKER: It's not related to this matter is it? Because I have ruled on that. I've been fairly liberal with Mr Macindoe and Mr Brownlee afterwards and the member's not going to continue—is she?Hon Louise Upston: No it's a separate point of order. In question No. 4 and question No. 5 yesterday as well as this question now a Minister in their answer has used their answer to an oral question for a gratuitous statement. In Opposition questions to Ministers you are very clear about stopping a member from asking anything additional and including anything in the answer that doesn't need to be there. I'm interested Mr Speaker if you are creating a new ruling that allows Ministers to have gratuitous flicks at this side of the House.SPEAKER: My view is that the member has just in absolute contradiction to the assurance that she gave me at the beginning of her question raised the very same matter and as a result of that the Opposition will lose two supplementary questions.Hon Louise Upston: The point of order that I understood immediately before me was around the issue of a member taking offence in this House and the Speaker ruling on a matter of offence so I apologise sir but I see that as a different point of order that I was raising on a different matter.SPEAKER: OK well I'll accept the member's apology."