1. Question No. 1—Prime MinisterRt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Acting Prime MinisterORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister1. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes in the context in which they were given. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why has he broken his promise of no new taxes and no increases in fuel tax given yesterday he announced a driver's tax through hiking registration fees plus a 22c per litre increase in fuel taxes albeit on a delayed timetable? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As the Acting Prime Minister I made no such announcements yesterday. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why isn't he willing to defend the Government's decision to break the promises the Prime Minister made before the election? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again as the Acting Prime Minister I stand by the things that I say and I'm very happy to begin by giving that group a lesson in constitutional law in this country about how this Parliament is properly run under the Standing Orders. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who is correct: Nicola Willis who said We're not increasing taxes. We're making an adjustment to a fee." or Nicola Willis who said "If it looks like a tax and it quacks like a tax it's a tax."? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well obviously the first statement she was making was on behalf of this Government and the second statement she was making was on behalf of the last one. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking of statements made by the last Government who is correct: Christopher Luxon who said "they've got a culture of entitlement at the heart of this Government right? They think they're entitled to your money. They think they're entitled to waste it." or Christopher Luxon who said "I'm entitled to the entitlements that everybody else has [at the moment]."? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The first statement that he was making was on his behalf but I do support that statement. With the second one he was pointing to what happens when you have 30 years of managerial neglect when it comes to Government properties—much of which was the responsibility of that Government over there—that sees millions and millions of dollars of assets wasted because of ideology and I can recite all of the circumstances of that which have now cost the taxpayer so much more money than looking after Ministers. But it began with the ideology of a man called Roger Douglas. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What is the total cost of retrospectively restoring mortgage interest deductibility for rental properties and how many school lunches would that pay for? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: First of all that will be itemised with particularity by the Minister of Finance and on the second question of course we have always been supportive of the programme for school lunches but we have to evaluate—which that Government sought a report on—to see whether it was money being well spent and in July of 2023 they received a very damning report from Treasury saying the converse. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which best sums up his Government's priorities: tax breaks for landlords at the expense of kids' school lunches attacking beneficiary entitlements whilst claiming a $1000-a-week housing allowance he doesn't need or abolishing an initiative to improve Māori health outcomes in the same week his Government passed a law change that will increase smoking? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well first of all I'll deal with the last one. The last statement is demonstrably untrue. The law written in—Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh here comes the tobacco lobby talking points. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No not at all—here comes the truth. The law was fixed up in 2018-19 which led to the biggest fall in cigarette smoking in this country's history. We are now a world leader and that's because the law—that they didn't write; we wrote it. In fact when they were doing their amendments in 2022 people like Chlöe Swarbrick were saying that it was bound to fail because it was never focused on actual circumstances. Now let's deal with that one there. On the second issue of calling the Prime Minister of this country squanderous the Prime Minister on that score would be an amateur compared with what he inherited: hundreds of billions of dollars unaccounted for over and over again. Hon Grant Robertson: What—"hundreds of billions"? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Going forward we'll be paying for that Mr Robertson. We'll be paying for that over the next 10 years—a cost occasioned by that Minister who threw money around like an eight-armed octopus. SPEAKER: I'd just make the point that that last question was seeking an answer on opinions which is—you know you got away with it but it's not to be a habit. Question No. 2 in the name of Dr Vanessa Weenink. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Yeah. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Are you suggesting that the member's right to ask a question is now being narrowed that we can no longer ask Ministers for opinions? SPEAKER: No. The point which I should have made more clear was that the question itself was asking Ministers to comment on what essentially are other people's opinions. Now that might be useful in most circumstances but I thought it was just a little bit—given that you outlined some stark choices it might be going just a bit too far. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well point of order Mr Speaker. Referencing the ruling that you made at the beginning of question time can you clarify which rule or which Standing Order you believe I breached in my question? SPEAKER: I think it's 371 and you'll find it's either (a) (b) or (c). It's the—Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Actually I'll look it up. SPEAKER: There's three parts to it. [Interruption] Well I think—can we come back to that because it's a fair point. But we'll move on to question No. 2."