 Carmel Sepuloni. Does she agree with her own ministry's report on household incomes that 305,000 kids are in poverty on her watch, and this number has gone up by 45,000 in one year alone? Hon ANNE TOLLEY The member misquotes the MSD'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%. So the opposite to that is that you could reduce child poverty by reducing the median income, which just shows how stupid it is, the member is to quote that— Mr SPEAKER. Order! Order! The last part of that answer will clearly lead to disorder. I ask the order. Supplementary question. I take offence to the last comment made by the Minister, and I ask her to withdraw and apologise. Order! Order! I was about to do that, but there was so much interjection going 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. I withdraw the last remarks. Order! Question No 8, David Clendon. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Order! Order! Point of order, Grant Robertson. This will be a point of order, but I expect Mr Stonge. Mr Speaker, 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. If the Minister did interject, I would be most upset. I am asking the Minister, did she interject in that vein? Oh, Mr Speaker. I was reacting to a comment. Order! If the member then did, if the Minister— No, I am sorry. It was to another comment that told me I was supposed to apologise, and I said, no, it is true. For the benefit of all members, an offence is taken by any remark. I consider the tone of the question, the words and words we 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 the very extreme it may require the Minister or member to leave the House if I so decide, but I am the determinant of that, and I am the determinant on the basis of each incident. It is difficult for any member to compare one with another. I will make the decision. Point of order, Chris Hipkins. 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 is required to withdraw or to withdraw and apologise or any member, and then basically uses an interjection to say, but I do not mean it. In this case, the Minister withdrew her comment and then interjected whether it was in response to you or someone else, and said, but I did not mean any of that. That actually makes the whole process meaningless. Order! The difficulty is that I did not hear the interjection. I would order. I then took it up with the Minister who said at that stage that she was responding to a further interjection to somebody else. It is difficult to go back. If the Minister had taken the opportunity of then saying that 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.