8. Question No. 8—Mental HealthINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister for Mental HealthQuestion No. 8—Mental HealthHon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Point of order. Thank you Mr Speaker. I just want to point out I am pre-empting this question a bit that it will be around the Suicide Prevention Office. I'm happy to proceed with the question; I just want to point out my delegation for suicide prevention is not Associate Minister of Health; it's for mental health. It's in the sheet yeah.SPEAKER: It's not necessarily a point of order but you managed to make a point I suppose.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Well point of order Mr Speaker. Noting that it is I believe actually fair to say because the question was put to the Minister for Mental Health. The Minister for Mental Health is confused as to why it's down as the Associate Minister of Health and given we didn't put it there I think it doesn't have to be right away but it would be good to know how it's ended up here like that.SPEAKER: That's fair enough. There is a process that you're well aware of as to how those questions do get put down. It is the—Hon Kieran McAnulty: That's why I didn't do a point of order.SPEAKER: Yeah that's right and so I'll take a good look at it. Thanks very much.Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order Mr Speaker. It does raise a reasonably substantive issue. The Government is ultimately responsible for determining which Minister is responsible for answering a question but where the question is a broad one like whether the Minister stands by all of their statements and actions there can be very limited grounds for transferring that from one Minister to another because ultimately the Government if they have transferred it have determined that the Associate Minister of Health is better to answer questions on whether the Minister for Mental Health stands by their statements and actions or not. That seems a slightly odd decision given that the Minister for Mental Health is the same person and is in the House. So if the question's been transferred it must have been the Government that transferred it and they must have a rationale for doing that.Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Speaking to the point of order. This is mysterious. I've just checked Mr Speaker. The question was lodged to the Minister for Mental Health; the Government did not transfer it to the Associate Minister of Health. Somewhere along the line—and I think the Clerk is checking right now—the question has made its way from being lodged to the Minister for Mental Health which I think the Minister for Mental Health is happy to answer in that capacity and it's gone on in the Order Paper as the Associate Minister of Health but the Government didn't transfer it—SPEAKER: Well we could have a massive inquest here or someone could seek leave for the question to be directed to the Minister for Mental Health.Hon Matt Doocey: Mr Speaker I seek leave of the House for the question to be directed to the Minister for Mental Health.SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.8. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister for Mental Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): First can I just take a moment to acknowledge how triggering the conversations have been around suicide for many people in New Zealand who have been affected by suicide in their families and their communities. Yes I do stand beside my statements and actions specifically that mental health and suicide prevention is a priority for this Government. My priorities for mental health addictions and suicide are to increase access to timely mental health addiction and suicide prevention support; number two to grow the mental health and addiction and suicide prevention workforce; and three strengthen focus on prevention and early intervention.Ingrid Leary: Does he stand by his statement this week insisting that the Suicide Prevention Office would not be a victim of the Government's cost cutting?Hon MATT DOOCEY: Yes. Look can I take the opportunity to clear something up? I saw the change document for the first time with the officials taking me through it on Monday. They have taken me through it and showed with the change proposal the proposal is actually to go from 5.5 fulltime-equivalents (FTE) in the Suicide Prevention Office which it currently is to 6.5 in the change proposal which is only a proposal but it will increase capacity and capability in that office that will remain open. It has been misleading: the Public Service Association put out a press release that it was to close; I was never informed of that and it was not to close.Ingrid Leary: Why did his health officials double down on their advice to the media yesterday saying that the number of roles to be disestablished and the number of roles to be integrated were essentially exactly the same as what they advised last week?Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well in response to that question I can only go by the assurance I got when I was given the change proposal for the first time on Monday. They took me through it and showed me where it has gone from 5.5 FTE to 6.5 FTE. I want to be very clear—and the officials have acknowledged I wasn't sufficiently briefed—I was not told it was to close. I've always been very clear. There's been a lot of discussion in the sector that is critical of the Suicide Prevention Office. One major commentator has called for it to close. I do not want it to close.Ingrid Leary: What is the practical difference between retaining only the functions of the office and closure given that the Prime Minister has just confirmed in the House today that there are current roles that will no longer be filled?Hon MATT DOOCEY: I've been very clear—and I was even interviewed by Jack Tame on Q+A—that I've been disappointed by the Suicide Prevention Office; I think it's lacked real leadership. The sector has been disappointed. But I've never been of the view to delete it; I've always been of the view to actually how we can give it clear expectations manage it targets and goals. As part of the review of the Suicide Action Plan that I'm due to take in the next couple of months I will be doing that with the Suicide Prevention Office.Ingrid Leary: Why did he ask his officials to publicly apologise?Hon MATT DOOCEY: I did not ask the officials to publicly apologise.Ingrid Leary: Why are officials publicly apologising when they're actually just following Government directions to find 6.5 percent funding cuts across health?Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well that's very simple because the fiscal sustainability programme clearly states to find savings while still delivering quality public services and delivering a Suicide Prevention Office is a quality public service.