 I think it's really unfortunate that we don't really know what KiwiSaver is for and that's why we get such confused political debates. Is it to increase national saving? Is it to make low middle income people better off in retirement? Or is it to cure our problems with a high exchange rate? And because we haven't actually sorted that out, we get very confused debates and the possibility that changes might be introduced that might be quite adverse. In my view, I think the reason we have KiwiSaver is very clear. The idea was to provide coverage for people who would otherwise miss out on an opportunity to have a work-based savings plan and to provide a supplement to universal New Zealand superannuation. And if we see it clearly in that light, then we won't be sidetracked into thinking that it's all about the numbers that are in KiwiSaver or all about the size of KiwiSaver. I think specifically at that particular group of people that we think need to have additional assistance for inadequate retirement. At the moment we are just entering into the retirement of the baby boom cohort, those are the ones that were born post-war 1946-1966. So they are all going to be retired by 2031 and that means that we are seeing a very rapid increase in early retirement numbers. So this is the good part of the demographic picture. It doesn't look quite so good as we go beyond 2031 because the baby boomers then start to enter into older age and by 2051 the last of the baby boomers has turned 85. So we've got the whole of the baby boom cohort over 85 and that is where some of the expenses kick in healthcare, particularly long-term care. If we really think that KiwiSaver should be about making sure that people have extra income in retirement, particularly the low-middle income group who miss out otherwise on work-based saving schemes, then it doesn't make much sense to deliver them a lump sum and to tell them to go away and manage that lump sum in the context of ever-increasing longevity and the uncertainties of the investment market and inflation, of course, as well. So we don't have anything at the moment which helps people decumulate that lump sum in a way that gives them some protection against living a long time. The traditional way of helping people decumulate their lump sums in retirement is through annuity products. They're very big overseas but New Zealanders don't have much familiarity with this concept. In fact we don't actually have an annuities market and the reason that we don't have an annuities market is that the government plays no role whatsoever in that market and therefore it disappears. It has to be actually underpinned by some sort of government action if we're going to have such a thing. An annuity is an income stream that goes on as long as you live. Essentially those that live the longest are subsidised by those that die earlier so that it all works out. Unfortunately for private providers if they're looking at an annuity product and they don't know what's going to happen to future longevity, then they can get the sums wrong and find it a very unattractive product to provide as people live ever longer than was expected. And there are other issues as well. It's very hard for private providers to provide an inflation component to an annuity. So usually traditional annuities have been fixed in dollar terms and of course then they lose value over time. At the retirement centre what we are working on is an annuity product which would have a considerable government role in it. But what it would do is provide an ongoing income stream to people. They'd give up their lump sums, they'd get the income stream, but there would also be a long term care rider attached to it so that at the point of needing long term care which is very expensive, there would be an increment, a tribling say of that annuity which would then give a sufficient amount to meet the capped fee of long term care and would help spread the costs of that long term care more equitably. If we don't start thinking about these things what we're going to find is that the working age population will be overburdened with caring for a larger older population and feel that it is unjust because many of the older population will have considerable wealth and assets. So what is really important is to get some sharing of resources amongst the older generation themselves and that is what an annuity product would do and by doing that take some of the pressure off the working age population. And of course if you incorporate long term care insurance into the design of an annuity there again you're providing a mechanism which doesn't make the cost go away. The cost is still there but a mechanism whereby it's more fairly funded from the resources of the older population themselves as a group rather than people getting a lump sum, dissipating it early in retirement and then having to fall back on the state for full long term care and other costs of old age.