9. Mental Health Services—FundingMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of HealthMental Health Services—Funding9. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: How much money was appropriated in Budget 2017 for mental health?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Out of the $16.7 billion budgeted for Vote Health I'm advised by the Ministry of Health that it's impossible to say how much was appropriated for mental health specifically. Matt Doocey: Were the Prime Minister's doubts correct about the $100 million put aside in a contingency fund for mental health in Budget 2017 when she said to media You're assuming it was real."? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The primary question is about appropriated expenditure. The member is now raising the issue of unappropriated expenditure. SPEAKER: Yeah and while I understand the background of the member and the fact that as a former Treasury official he has very good knowledge about the difference I think we shouldn't expect every member of Parliament to have that detail. I think that question comes close enough. Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Sorry Mr Speaker would the member please repeat the question in that case. SPEAKER: Sure. Matt Doocey: Were the Prime Minister's doubts correct about the $100 million put aside in a contingency fund for mental health when she said to media "You're assuming it was real."?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes. Matt Doocey: In light of that answer where is that $100 million being redirected to considering that amount was set aside solely for mental health in Budget 2017? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That money was not appropriated.Matt Doocey: So is the Minister saying that he has received no advice from officials that the $100 million does in fact exist and that advice has been given to the Prime Minister?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I might be able to assist the member. The money has not been appropriated. There was a contingency fund in the fiscal forecasts and the previous Government had taken no decision on any initiatives that it had spoken to. There are some initiatives that clearly were in their infancy—poorly thought-through some of them—and over nine years it had not taken any action on the front that it was advertising. Matt Doocey: Which of the 17 mental health projects identified by the previous Government in concert with Government agencies the Chief Science Advisor and the mental health sector will be missing out as a result of this redirection of money?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Some of those ideas which I state again were in their infancy had some useful evidence behind them. We will develop those ideas that had useful evidence. This Government will get on with the job of making sure that mental health is a priority. It won't take us nine years to make a meaningful difference in mental health.Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I get an answer that clearly outlines which projects?SPEAKER: In fact if I wanted to take the technical approach that the Minister did at the beginning I would have ruled the whole question out. I think it is very hard to get an answer about unappropriated expenditure. You can't take something away that hasn't been given.Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There's a difference obviously in wording in the nomenclature here but it's important that the House doesn't trip itself up on it because some money can be set aside in a contingency fund and not necessarily be finally appropriated. I appreciate that's a fine distinction but I think to the public money being set aside is actually set aside and the fact that it's yet to be finally appropriated is a technical distinction which the Minister is—SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I did spend quite a lot of time dealing with these matters and I give him an absolute assurance that lots of money that goes into contingency funds don't make their way to the things where they may. That is not taking something away because it hasn't yet been given. The decision to appropriate is that decision.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether he has discerned a pattern of announcements with respect to the contingency fund not yet appropriated in a number of areas of medicine and elsewhere as well?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There have been a lot of promises made under the previous term of the previous Government without the delivery that was needed to deliver on those promises. This is an unfortunate pattern—the member is right.Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know you don't like me reflecting on your decisions but I do like to occasionally reflect for a short period of time—SPEAKER: The member is getting a bit of latitude—first day back.Hon Steven Joyce: Well I am just concerned that this is indeed a debatable point. There's no doubt that the money was set aside. It was announced; it's in the Budget documents. My colleague is attempting to question the Minister on what happened to the money. I appreciate he is hiding behind the lack of an appropriation but it is actually in—SPEAKER: On that note the member will resume his seat. What I would like is for the member if he is going to make a point of order to make it around the Standing Orders and around Speakers' rulings and not to reflect on other members or attempt to make political points. If he does he'll be stopped immediately. Rt Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Well—sorry; I'm actually part way through hearing the Hon Steven Joyce. Can we let him finish? He's finished has he? Right.Rt Hon Bill English: Well if that's the criteria it's this: the Speaker has no role determining whether questions are in or out of order depending on whether the money is in a contingency fund or appropriated. It's not the Speaker's job; it's a debatable matter for the House. That announcement was made in this House as part of a Budget. It's legitimate debating material. It was widely publicised welcomed by the sector. With respect it is not your role to say the question can't be answered on the basis of the technicalities of appropriation. It's simply wrong.Rt Hon Winston Peters: The second point made by Mr Doocey was: where has the money gone that was set aside? That was the second question and the rest of it just fell apart after that.SPEAKER: Order! I will stand up. I wouldn't have put it quite like that but technically right back at the beginning the honourable Minister was correct. I was probably a little kinder than I should have been to let a certain number of questions run. Whether something is appropriated or not we had an assurance from the Minister so at that point it is not a debating matter or at question time when the Minister's word has to be taken. I probably should've stopped two or three of the other supplementaries from Mr Doocey but I decided—I know that people are very interested in this area of policy—notwithstanding the fact that technically they were not well expressed I decided to let them go so that there could be comment on them in the House.Rt Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What was the technical basis on which you would've ruled the questions out of order?SPEAKER: We had an assurance from the Minister that the money had not been appropriated and we had further questions from Mr Doocey that worked on the basis that they were.Rt Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Where does it say in the Standing Orders that Parliament can't discuss money that has been announced is placed in a contingency but is not finally appropriated? That would be a Standing Orders' innovation that in 27 years I've never heard.SPEAKER: And I didn't so rule. [Interruption] Mr Hipkins is probably lucky that I wasn't standing up because he might have been standing up.Rt Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What was the ruling?SPEAKER: The ruling was that actually Dr Clark was accurate in his comments at the beginning. The initial question and some of the obviously well-prepared supplementaries flowed from a question of appropriation and Dr Clark did point out that the supplementaries were in fact about money that failed at that first hurdle.Hon Steven Joyce: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Is this a further point of order?Hon Steven Joyce: Yes it's a fresh point of order in relation to the same question. Dr Clark in his answer to that question said that he couldn't say how much had been appropriated for mental health and yet we are now talking about the level of exactitude about what is and isn't appropriated which would suggest with respect that he could say—because you'd know what was appropriated and what isn't. He can't have it both ways—on the one hand saying he knows exactly what is appropriated and what isn't but he's unable to answer the primary question.SPEAKER: I think the member might reflect on that and he might want to come and see me afterwards and I'll give some further explanations."