Today Megan Woods and Matt Doocey joined John MacDonald following the release of the budget.

They discussed the key aspects of it including changes to KiwiSaver, will there be an announcement on the retirement as it sound like Matt is hinting towards? Should parents really support 18 and 19 year olds if they aren't working? And what is in the budget for Canterbury?

LISTEN ABOVE.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Quite a well-known chief executive and finance guy told me once that, in business, you should always make use of other people’s money first.

Which is exactly what the Government is doing with the KiwiSaver changes announced in yesterday’s budget.

It wants more of our money going in from our wages and salaries and less of its money going in through government contributions. Although, that’s our money too when it comes down to it.

But the gist is, the minimum contributions are going to increase from 3 percent to 4 percent and the bit the Government chips in each year is halving - from a maximum of $520 to a maximum of $260.

The change in what we pay-in to our KiwiSaver is going to be somewhat gradual. From April 1 next year, the rate will shift to 3.5 percent, before increasing again in April 2028 to 4 per cent.

But if you’re earning more than $180,000 a year, there’ll be some changes coming sooner. You’ll have no government money at all going into your KiwiSaver from July this year.

Which I think is great. Because why should someone earning that amount of money get a government hand-out? They shouldn’t.

Especially, when you consider that the finance minister made no noises yesterday about any longer term changes - such as the ones I always have and always will push for: means testing the state pension and increasing the age you can get it.

But with no talk about either of those, I think the Government should have gone harder and faster with the contribution changes.

I’m not the only one who thinks this.

Rupert Carlyon runs a KiwiSaver provider and he says 4 percent plus 4 percent is better than the 3 percent plus 3 percent that we have now - but nothing like the 6 percent plus 6 percent they have in Australia.

And he says it’s nowhere near the 15 percent average contribution rates in other OECD countries.

He says: “We have a long way to go, but it's better than nowhere."

Another provider, Dean Anderson, says the finance minister should have stood up yesterday and delivered an outline of how New Zealand is going to follow Australia’s lead and increase contributions more than it did yesterday.

And he will get no argument from me.

Because we need to be way closer to the way they do things in Australia with their retirement savings scheme if there’s any hope of keeping state pension entitlement anything close to 65.

Which I think is way too low. The retirement age should be, at least, 67.

We also need to be way closer to the way they do things in Australia if we’re going to hold on to this pipedream of keeping the pension a universal benefit that everyone - whether they need it or not.

Yes, I know the consequences of contributing more to KiwiSaver. It means less money in the pocket in the here and now. Which is why some people are warning us today that the changes aren’t great news for everyone.

Retirement Commissioner Jane Wrightson says low-income earners, Maori, women and self-employed will be hit the hardest by the lower government contributions.

She says: "It's a shame there are so few government incentives for a scheme that underpins private saving for retirement.”

The Retirement Commissioner would have liked to have seen the Government use the money it’s going to save from reduced contributions to help these people out.

But, irrespective of how we are affected by having to pay more into our KiwiSaver and getting less contributions from the government, we need to remind ourselves what saving is all about.

It’s about denying ourselves in the here and now, to benefit in the future. And yes, we will all be affected by these changes announced yesterday to varying degrees.

But, what it comes down to for me, is that these changes are about denying ourselves a little bit more than we do at the moment, so that we can have a little bit more in the future.

And what’s so bad about that?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There’s a danger that when the new stadium opens in Christchurch next year, we'll have no idea exactly what speed we should be going when we drive around the area.

At the moment, the council wants it to be 30kph on Madras Street, Tuam Street, Lichfield Street, Duke Street, Hereford Street and St Asaph Street.

But now it’s being told by the Government that it can’t do that, and I think they should just make it 50kph. I’ll explain why shortly.

There are also parts where the council wants the limit to be 10kph on Lichfield Street between Madras and Manchester. Apparently, the council believes that that can stay based on the design of the street and expected traffic volumes.

If we wind back the clock, 2023 was when the council consulted us on the 30kph limit and, apparently, it got the tick from people and so that’s been the plan ever since.

But between then and now, the Government’s got involved because it’s not into all these reduced speed limits that popped up under the last government.

Which means the council has been told that it needs to drop the 30kph speed limit idea and the speed limit around the stadium needs to be at least 40kph. And the council being the council, has to go and do a whole new round of consultation.

Which has central city councillor Jake McLellan saying that it’s nothing but a waste of time and money. He says the council should be left to decide for itself what speed limit it wants around the stadium. Or anywhere for that matter.

And I’m with him on that bit. Of course it should. Except I want the council to set a 50kph, for the simple reason that if the traffic is crawling, we will all crawl.

When everyone is trying to get to or around the stadium when there’s a big event on, the speed limit could be 100kph, but we’d all still be going about 20 or 30 or even 10kph.

Which is why I think most people, if they were asked, would say there should be no special speed limit and it should just be 50.

Because I think it’s simple really. If there’s an event on where there are truckloads of people making their way to the stadium, traffic will be at a standstill anyway. Or there’ll be roads completely closed off.

There are no speed limits around the Apollo Projects Stadium – or the “temporary” stadium, as it’s also known.

I know that it’s not right on the street, like the new one in town will be, but when there’s a match on there or a concert or whatever, the traffic is what it is. Just like it will be when the new one is up and running.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.