Sepuloni Carmel: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSepuloni Carmel: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:9067. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Development: Why is the Government according to the Salvation Army “inventing new numbers like pseudo-service-level indicators that are difficult to verify and have no point of reference”; is it to hide the true state of poverty in New Zealand?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I fully reject the member’s assertion. The Salvation Army report does not question how poverty numbers are measured. The Ministry of Social Development regularly puts out the household incomes report which looks at a large number of measures around hardship and poverty in New Zealand and the Salvation Army report makes a fair and reasonable use of this ministry data. To say that this Government is deliberately inventing numbers is ludicrous and the member should read more than just the first page of the Salvation Army report.Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree that “government agencies appear to be using targets and the numbers behind them in a ‘less than straightforward manner’ ” and is this not just another example of her department being disingenuous?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No I reject that assertion too and I think the Minister of Finance has already addressed it. Many of the statistics used and quoted in the report are actually tier one statistics from Child Youth and Family statistics that are used in the report. Actually the Audit Office does have a look at those statistics and if it had any concerns I have no doubt it would have raised them when it came to the select committee.Carmel Sepuloni: When will she stop her officials “changing definitions behind indicators so results appear better” a practice confirmed in the Salvation Army reports?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I think the member is jumping to great conclusions because there is no evidence produced in the report. It asked some legitimate questions about changes in practice and what effect that might have had on the reporting all of which have been answered today very clearly by the Chief Social Worker Paul Nixon.Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with the Children’s Commissioner who said in the select committee today: “The Government’s own data does not show change when it comes to child poverty.”?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well no I do not necessarily agree with the Children’s Commissioner because I do not know upon which measures he is commenting. As I have said the ministry produces a regular report that has a number of measures of poverty and hardship and which particular ones he is using I have no idea.Carmel Sepuloni: Does she agree with her own ministry’s report on household incomes that 305000 kids are in poverty on her watch and this number has gone up by 45000 in 1 year alone?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member misquotes the Ministry of Social Development’s report mischievously. As the report itself stated to use that figure would be mischievous because in fact it reflects the median income raised by 3 percent. The opposite to that is that you could reduce child poverty by reducing the median income which just shows how stupid the member is to quote that figure.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part of that answer will clearly lead to disorder.Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at the last comment made by the Minister. I ask her to withdraw and apologise.Mr SPEAKER: I was about to do that but then there was so much interjection coming from my left. On the basis that it has now been raised by the member I require the Minister to stand and withdraw the last part of that answer.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I withdraw the last remark. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: A point of order Grant Robertson and this will be a point of order I expect.Grant Robertson: You required the Minister to withdraw that statement. She subsequently interjected across the House that she was not going to apologise for it because it was true which I believe runs counter to your ruling.Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister did interject I would be most upset. I am asking the Minister: did she interject in that vein?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I was reacting to a comment—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the Minister then did—Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No I am sorry it was to another comment that told me I was supposed to apologise. I said: “No. It’s true.”Mr SPEAKER: For the benefit of all members when offence is taken at any remark I consider the tone of the question the words the way they were used. I am the sole determinant of the action that is then taken. It might in some cases require a member to withdraw the comment. It may in some cases require a member to withdraw and apologise for the comment. And in very extreme cases it may require the Minister or member to leave the House if I so decide. But I am the determinant of that and I determine it on the basis of each incident. It is difficult for any member to compare one with another. I will make the decision.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I absolutely understand that and I do not think that that is the issue in question. The issue in question is where a Minister or any member is required to withdraw or withdraw and apologise and then basically uses an interjection to say: “But I don’t mean it.” In this case the Minister withdrew her comment and then interjected whether it was in response to you or to someone else to say: “I didn’t mean any of that.” That actually makes the whole process meaningless.Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty is I did not hear the interjection. [Interruption] Order! I then took it up with the Minister who said at that stage that she was responding to a further interjection from somebody else. It is difficult to go back. If the Minister had taken the opportunity of then saying she did not agree with the withdrawal of this comment I would do something about it. I cannot be sure that that was the case.