Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much Mr Chair. First of all Mr Tim Macindoe Part 1 clause 123B—clause 123B is actually in Part 3 and it's been dealt with and the reason that we haven't got members on this side of the Chamber standing up and debating this is because we agree with it. There's nothing to talk about. Of course the members aren't going to talk about what might be going forward because what might be going forward isn't part of this bill and the debate around the bill at committee stage has to be on the part in question. So to answer a couple more questions Brett Hudson talked about—he asked why we couldn't go down to 2 percent. So we've got 3% 4% 6% 8% or 10%". Well there are about 2.8 million Kiwis in KiwiSaver at the moment so I think there's a vast majority of Kiwis who have actually made a conscious decision to invest in KiwiSaver. Keep in mind the employer contribution sits at 3 percent and we think that the minimum amount that an employee should contribute is the same as the employer contribution—hence 3 percent. So we're going to leave it at that. I think including the 6 percent and the 10 percent—you know that's a good move that was supported by the Finance and Expenditure Committee and that's the reason we've done that. Dr Smith clauses 222 and 224—this isn't about providing any form of competitive advantage in any way shape or form to any particular entity over another. The policy intent here is about public entities so there's no competitive advantage in that space. Child support—I can give you an unequivocal answer that this will not mean any reduction in child support payments in any way shape or form. In fact under the Labour Party's Families Package last year there were about 375000 families who were on average about $75 a week better off. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Child support? Hon STUART NASH: No no—just generally. So we are not in the habit of taking money off those who are the most vulnerable. I would agree with you Dr Smith I think when you said that often those receiving child support are the most vulnerable in our community. So no no—you can have my absolute assurance that this is not about taking money off those who would have received it anyway. Then you also talked about student loans. All this is doing is it's changing the definition of "special tax code" to "tailored tax code". This is part of the Inland Revenue Department's Business Transformation programme. What a tailored tax code is is that an individual in fact can call up and can outline the amount of income they're getting—and this is certainly the case if you work in two or more jobs—and you will get a unique or a tailored tax code for your specific situation. So it's bringing the tax system into the 21st century around business transformation. It won't make any difference. In fact it'll go a long way to ensuring that those who have got a student loan who are now working and have repayment obligations are actually repaying the right amount. So it's all good from that respect.You had one other question. I can't remember. Was that all the questions? I think that was all the questions.Darroch Ball: Well answered. Very thorough.Hon STUART NASH: Very thorough. But I must admit it was disappointing when we had a former Minister stand up for five minutes and not talk about the bill at all. Maybe they've run out of things to say—maybe they've run out of things to say. But anyway that's my contribution."