Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. Excellent choice—I've been up and down countless times in the last hour and a half trying to get a call. I wanted to just pick up on a point made by Jan Logie which is a very unusual thing for me to do but she made the point that the Minister in the chair was a tireless champion on wanting to raise benefits in Opposition and no doubt she was a tireless champion for our $25 a week increase in benefits back in 2015. [Interruption] Oh she didn't vote for it? Well that is a surprise. I would like the Minister—could she confirm that she didn't vote for that $25? Firstly that's the question I'd like to have answered. I note that in the departmental disclosure statement it says that the Cabinet legislation committee received advice and that those papers were going to be public within 30 days. I can't find them on the website. And as you know we are quite good at that. Perhaps Gabriel Makhlouf might go and sort your website out so we can find it! That would be helpful. We're in urgency here we are judging a piece of legislation that's not going through a select committee we're in the committee of the whole House and I think it's incumbent on the Minister to make those papers available. We should be able to understand what advice was given to the Cabinet legislation committee.Further I note on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that there was a report provided to the Attorney-General—a section 7 report—but I've checked on the justice website and I can't find that. Clearly there was something that was raised in that section 7 report and it's not available. Yet we are here in urgency putting a piece of legislation through. We know that we get problems with legislation anyway. Select committees are a great safety measure to ensure that those problems are identified early. Why can't we read those pieces of advice that have gone to Cabinet and gone to the Attorney-General? I think this is pretty serious quite frankly—it's very serious. This is about good legislation. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is a fundamental plank to measure our legislation and that's why these section 7 reports are so important. Clearly there is a right being trampled over that is supposed to be inalienable under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and yet we don't have that advice to make a judgment on. I feel deeply uncomfortable with that. So the Minister in the chair I'm calling on her to tell us what that advice is and to table it. She has the opportunity to do that. She was quite I thought—well she didn't put it very well when she tabled the document that the Hon Louise Upston forced her into doing and I think if she wants to be generous she should get these documents out here so that the country can be comfortable that Cabinet made a decision based on sound advice and that the Attorney-General's advice hasn't got something in there that we should all be deeply worried about.Also one other question that I think is quite relevant: the $11 that's been mentioned with the indexing to the average wage. Has that been worked out? We see that as a difference between $11 and $25 which was under us. That nominal difference looks not too bad—it's bad enough but certainly not as generous as the National Government was—but actually inflation has happened in those four years. So that wouldn't be $25 in today's dollars; it would be something like $26 or more. I haven't done the numbers but I would be certain that the Minister would have received advice on that and the comparison between the $25 uplift in the average baseline benefits versus the $11 by 2023 for indexing. I'd like to know what that number is. What is that number? And what would have been the fiscal cost of making that $25—giving it a bump up for those beneficiaries if they really believe they need more money? And that's what they said. What was the cost? You must have got advice on that. You don't just come in here and make rash statements without advice.