9. Question No. 9—HealthMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 9—Health9. 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 executive summary on page 12 of the Report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): As I said in answer to question No. 7 last Thursday none of the recommendations of the inquiry referred to a 20 percent access target. The report does refer to a possible indicative target that may be 20% within the next 5 years." but it then goes on to say on page 12 "An explicit new access target must be set supported by funding for a wider range of therapies especially talk therapies alcohol and other drug services and culturally aligned services." The Government has worked on costings for specific proposals related to Budget 2019 not costings for possible indicative targets that require further work and were not recommendations of the inquiry.Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With your permission in my next supplementary I'd like to use a quote that might make my supplementary just a small bit longer.SPEAKER: Well have a go.Matt Doocey: Thank you. Why is the Minister refuting the access target when under "Main points" of chapter 4—"Access and choice"—of the mental health inquiry recommendations it clearly states "Access to (and funding for) mental health and addiction services needs to be significantly increased from the 3.7% of the population who currently access specialist services to the 20% who experience mental health and addiction issues each year. An explicit decision must be made to do this"?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As I said previously none of the recommendations of the inquiry referred to a 20 percent access target. It does refer to possible indicative targets that the member quotes but it says "An explicit new access target must be set supported by funding for a wider range of therapies". It also talks about who might give advice on setting that target. By no means does it suggest that that should be the target per se. It is an indicative target that's discussed in the report. It's not one of the recommendations of the report. That is left open.Matt Doocey: So why is the Minister after launching an inquiry in April last year reported back in December—SPEAKER: Order! Ask the question.Matt Doocey: —twice delayed quietly backing away from increasing access to mental health and addiction services as identified—SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. That's one supplementary gone. The member can try again if he wants. If the member has a question he should ask it.Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that question was very detailed and it needed to be—SPEAKER: It included a whole pile of unnecessary words. Does the member have a further supplementary?Matt Doocey: Does he agree the estimated cost to increase access to mental health and addiction services to 20 percent of the population would be approximately an additional $1.5 billion a year; if not why not?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I'm not about to make Budget commitments today. I do think with that figure the member is being a bit cute because by implication he is suggesting that the current mix of forensic out-patient and intensive services might be extended to all of those experiencing mental distress when those services are targeted traditionally towards those with the highest mental health needs. What we're talking about is building new services for those with mild to moderate needs. That is something that comes through very clearly in the mental health and addiction inquiry. The cost of those services will be very different and the member knows that."