6. Question No. 6—HealthMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 6—Health6. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: What is his best estimate of the cost of increasing access to mental health and addiction services from the current target of 3 percent to 20 percent of the population which was identified as an indicative target in the Report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): None of the recommendations of the inquiry refer to a 20 percent access target indicative or otherwise. It is this Government's task to respond to the report's 40 recommendations. I presume the member is referring to a passage on page 110 of the report which states when referring to an indicative target We recognise that further work will be required to identify a specific coverage target". The actual recommendation of the inquiry is to "significantly increase access to publicly funded mental health and addiction services". The member will have to wait until the Budget to learn more.Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question was a primary on notice. I take the Minister's point; it was not in the primary recommendation of the inquiry for increasing access. The indicative target is referenced at several points through the inquiry report and is the rationale for underpinning the recommendation of increasing access. The inquiry panel refers several times—SPEAKER: Order! Order! No no—has the member got a point of order as opposed to not liking the answer?Matt Doocey: Well he didn't address the question Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Well I think he did. You know the Minister is in some danger if that figure is through the report as an indicative target but the Minister's assuring me it's not and we'll go to another supplementary.Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I just point out that in the primary question I do not reference the indicative target as a recommendation; I reference it from the report.SPEAKER: And I have had an indication from the—well I have it verbally rather than by head nods and shakes.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker would you like me to read the passage from the paper because I think the context is important? The figure 20 percent is in there. It says "may be" and it also says "We recognise that further work will [need to be done] in order to identify a specific coverage target"—so it's saying that that is not the specific coverage target that it thinks will be required—"(since not everyone will need or want to access a service)". And it also recognises that further work will need to be done on definitions of services and access how access might be expanded over time and a cost-effective way to achieve whatever the objective is. So it's a very general reference and—SPEAKER: The member can resume his seat. I think it would have been more helpful—I don't normally encourage Ministers to have longer answers but that could in this particular circumstance have been useful.Matt Doocey: So is the Minister saying a Government-initiated inquiry that was initiated in April 2018 reported back in December delayed in March and delayed in April—the main recommendation of the inquiry was to increase access with an indicative target of up to—SPEAKER: Order! Order! If the member has a further supplementary he may ask it. A question not a speech—a question.Matt Doocey: Is the Minister telling the House that for a Government initiated inquiry with an indicative target for the main recommendation there's been no costings for that indicative target? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I accept that a key recommendation of the inquiry is increased access to mental health services for people in distress and that is a recommendation this Government is looking to address. But of course I'm not about to make any Budget announcements today. What I can assure the House is that it won't take this Government nine years to belatedly realise mental health is an issue only to come up with an unallocated contingency of just $100 million spread over four years.Matt Doocey: Would he expect the extra annual funding for mental health services based on the current formula of $1.35 billion for the current target of 3 percent to be less or more than $6 billion across four years if you chose to reach the 20 percent target?SPEAKER: Well I won't make any choice but answer the question anyway.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don't think it's useful for the member to be cute with numbers. I think what he will accept is that the 3 percent for whom the services are currently focused are those with the greatest need for mental health support—those at the most difficult end of the mental health spectrum. Those who the inquiry recommends ought to be able to access services more broadly are those with mild to moderate conditions and this Government is focused on the recommendations of the report.Matt Doocey: If the current cost of mental health provision in New Zealand for a target of 3 percent of the population is $1.35 billion annually what would he expect that amount to be for 20 percent of the population?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: More than the current funding.Matt Doocey: What does the Minister say to the 2000 people who turned up to 26 locations for public meetings the 5200 people—SPEAKER: Order! Get to the question.Matt Doocey: —that made a submission when he has done no costings for the indicative target for the main recommendation of the mental health inquiry that the Government initiated?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Firstly I have already rejected the premise of that member's question based on that being the main recommendation of the report. It's just not true. Secondly I would say thank you to those people who turned up that made submissions and that did present in public. This is an incredibly important inquiry and I would point out that it is something that every party in this coalition and confidence and supply Government campaigned on because we thought it was time to have a good hard look at the delivery of mental health services. Unfortunately the then Government didn't support an inquiry and that is shame on them."