Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I have a question for the Minister specifically on the KiwiSaver contributions. I refer back to the fundamental intention of even having a KiwiSaver in the first place. It's that with people saving for their retirement principally they are the beneficiaries of those retirement savings but society also gains some benefit from reducing pressure on potential top-ups and other supports that people might otherwise require in their retirement if they didn't have enough of their own resources to spend. So I commend the Minister for adding the 10 percent contribution level in there because if people are able to put aside that much of their pre-tax income every pay cheque then I think it's a very good thing should they choose to want to do that that the State makes it easy for them to do so and ultimately they will benefit incredibly well one would expect from that and the State also gets some level of benefit out of that too.Then I look at the 6 percent which is clearly a newly added piece and the natural interpretation one would make is it's there for someone who can't quite afford 8 percent but could afford more than 4 percent. Again that seems extremely reasonable. The extra contribution they make will provide benefit principally to them but also we can argue to some extent to the State and other New Zealanders. But that leads then to a question and the question is: if the whole principle of KiwiSaver is we want people saving for their own retirement because of the personal benefits but also societal benefits wouldn't it be better for us to be able to have a regime where as many people as possible have the confidence that they could participate and did so? So the simple question there would be: why Minister did you not introduce a 2 percent contribution level?Hon Stuart Nash: There is already.BRETT HUDSON: Well not according to this legislation Minister there isn't. So if people can't afford a lower level but could perhaps stretch themselves to 2 percent that could be the difference between a contributions holiday and making a small contribution into their KiwiSaver. We could all argue therefore that we would expect that more New Zealanders would be likely to actually take up the option and to continue to contribute because the legislation in clause 234 points out that In section 64(2) replace '3% 4% or 8%' with '3% 4% 6% 8% or 10%'."—because clearly 2 percent is not currently an option. But I think it would be a good thing. I'd love to hear the Minister's view on this but I think it would be a good thing if we could find a way to accommodate those people for whom 3 percent or more seems a stretch to them possibly due to other commitments they have possibly due to some uncertainty about future mortgage rates or some uncertainty about costs of living or costs of raising children—whatever their particular circumstances may be. If we have a situation where there are New Zealanders who are simply saying "Well 3 percent is a little bit of a stretch for me." wouldn't it be a good thing for them and a good thing for New Zealand if we could find a way to bring them into the scheme as active participants particularly people who might currently be on a long-term contributions holiday—or even if they were with this law change to therefore have to revalidate that holiday each year they could still do so.So Minister I'd like to hear from you whether you would consider that change. It's a pretty easy Supplementary Order Paper I would think to add even at this late stage. We could just add it in. A few more people on the scheme is a good thing. Obviously I would suggest that the Minister would want to limit the employer's contribution under the scheme. They wouldn't be expected I think to contribute more than that; although he might have comment on that as well. He might actually feel that there is an argument that could be made that just because the employee is in circumstances that would permit themselves contributing only 2 percent of their pre-tax salary that perhaps their employer—because they won't change their employment conditions; they won't change their wage packet. If the employee can't afford the extra amount there is potentially an argument that the employer still could. So Minister I leave my contribution at this stage at that. I'd love to hear from you on that idea."