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.

There's consultation on speed limits around Christchurch's Te Kaha stadium - once again.

New Government rules are forcing the City Council to ask for public feedback for a second time.

A 30 kilometre-an-hour limit was approved for multiple surrounding streets but can no longer be implemented because of the changes.

Mayor Phil Mauger told Canterbury mornings although this feels like over-consulting, this needs to be right to ensure public safety.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Let’s call it and say that workers going to and from Christchurch Hospital at night-time deserve better.

This is after what’s being described as a “very violent” assault on a staff member heading home after work last weekend. It’s understood the woman had been on a shift at the birthing centre, on Antigua Street.

What we know at this point is that security around the hospital’s birthing unit has been bolstered and, as a temporary measure, security escorts are being provided for staff, student nurses, and midwives during the hours of darkness.

The thing is though, should this extra security be a permanent arrangement for hospital staff? And if it’s needed at the hospital, what about other workers going to and from work at night and first thing in the morning?

And this is where I’m feeling a bit torn. Because, yes, of course nurses and everyone at the hospital need to be safe. And yes, I think these extra measures do need to be permanent. So I’m on the side of the hospital staff here.

And if there’s anything people like midwives and nurses get, it’s a lot of support from the public. Especially when things like this happens – and rightly so.

Also, because safety has been a real concern with staff having to park far away from the hospital campus.

I always remember the call we had from a nurse a couple of years ago, and how she told us she always carried a pair of scissors in her pocket when she walked to her car at night, because she was so worried about her safety.

So Health NZ has told staff in an email that an incident happened last weekend and explained what it’s doing to keep people safe, saying that safety is its top priority.

The email says: “Additional security measures have been put in place after a serious assault last weekend. Our security team has, as a temporary response, bolstered security in the area around this part of the hospital. This will be a priority over the coming days to provide an extra layer of security.”

And the bolstering of security that they talk about are the security escorts being provided for staff, student nurses, and midwives during the hours of darkness, and mobile patrols being focussed on shift changes when people are coming and going.

But there are plenty of other people doings jobs where they have to turn up and leave at odd hours – late at night, the middle of the night and first thing in the morning. And they have to run the gauntlet in the dark.

But here’s where I land. I think that, when it comes down to it, not every worker can expect to have extra security put on. But when it comes to nurses and midwives here in Christchurch, they should.

Don't ask me for a thorough explanation of why I feel that way because I know that, in some ways, it doesn’t make sense. But that’s where I’m at.

Reading between the lines, I think the email that went around health staff indicates that these extra security escorts are going to be nothing more than temporary. Because it included all the usual stuff about the incident being a timely reminder for hospital staff to look after themselves and others.

The emails says: “Ensuring your personal safety when leaving or arriving at the hospital involves a mix of situational awareness, planning and taking precautions.

“Whether within one of our campuses or travelling to and from work, please be always conscious of your security and take appropriate actions to protect yourself and your property. Taking these precautions can help minimise risks and ensure your personal safety.”

So a bit of health and safety backside covering, but medical staff deserve better than that.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In an ideal world, I would love us to have more trains.

In an ideal world, I think it would be great if all our big cities had rail passenger services.

Not just Auckland and Wellington that Transport Minister Chris Bishop was talking about when he announced this morning that there’s $600 million in this week’s Budget going into rail.

I won’t go all scratched record on it and start asking where the money is for the Greater Christchurch area, but I would love to see money going into commuter rail here.

Because if we do think rail has a future in New Zealand —and I’m talking about passenger rail as well as sending freight by rail— I think it’s more realistic to expect commuters to take the train than people going out of town on holiday.

So that’s one area where I’d put the money – into passenger trains. And that’s probably my ideal world scenario, which I’ll come back to.

What I think is certainly more achievable though, is getting more freight shipped around the place on trains. Because we’ve shown how bad we are as a country at maintaining our roading network. And, if you believe the rail advocates, they’ll tell you that the main problem is trucks. That they’re responsible for chewing up the roads.

And, when you travel down the east coast of the South Island, it does strike you how much of a donkey track State Highway 1 is in parts.

Yet we seem to be quite happy for these trucks —designed in countries where they do have massive motorways— to go up and down that donkey track night and day, 365 days a year.

So get more freight on trains first. And then, if we’re going to do anything more with passenger trains, focus on getting people to work and school on a train instead of expecting them to go to Nelson for their holidays on a train.

Because I’ve long thought how brilliant it would be if we had a rail service from Rangiora to the city and from Rolleston to the city.

Imagine what the motorways would look like. Imagine getting into town on a train —not a bus, where you can get all the same disruptions as other vehicles— but you scream into town on the train, you don’t have to worry about finding a park, and then get the train back home again in the evening.

The Canterbury Regional Transport Committee obviously likes the sound of that too.

This is the entity that involves all councils in the canterbury region —including ECAN— and NZTA. And the number one job of the regional transport committee is to implement the Canterbury Regional Transport Plan.

In recent years, there’s been talk of passenger rail services running from the city to Rolleston and as far north as Amberley.

Reading the most recent regional transport plan, the enthusiasm that we were hearing a couple of years seems from the transport committee seems to have been tempered a bit.

There is still political interest in a passenger rail service south of Christchurch but there are no timeframes and, of course, where the money comes from is the stumbling block.

But there are positive signs if you're into the idea of rail, like I am.

The regional transport plan sets a goal of increasing the amount of freight moved by train in Canterbury by 100% over the next eight or nine years. So that’s good.

But it also talks about the population of Selwyn growing by around 58,000 people over the next 20-and-a-bit years. And, in Waimakariri, the population is expected to go up by 25,000 people in the same period.

Christchurch is expected to have another 66,000 people.

So there’s an extra 149,000 people living in the Greater Christchurch area, and we think the Northern Motorway and the Southern Motorway are going to be just fine? Dream on.

And that’s the argument right there for passenger rail services in the Greater Christchurch area.

Which is why when I ask, should we be investing more in rail here in Canterbury, my answer is yes.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here’s a story someone told me this morning about what happened within the last six-or-so weeks, when a Christchurch woman took her teenage daughter to the after-hours surgery.

I’m telling you this because the Government has announced that there’s going to be increased funding in Thursday’s budget for after-hours medical care.

Which is great. I’m not going to bag the Government for that. And the fact that people in rural areas are going to get better access to urgent healthcare is great.

But there’s an aspect of yesterday’s announcement that makes no sense to me.

It’s the fact that none of that extra funding is coming Christchurch's way. New Zealand’s second-largest city, and there’s not going to be anything extra pumped into after hours healthcare here.

This is the place where, in the last year or so, we’ve had the 24 hour surgery unable to operate 24/7. Where we’ve had the emergency department turning people away. Shutting its doors because people can’t get into the after hours or can’t afford the after hours and the ED gets overwhelmed.

And this is the city where what I’m about to tell you won’t be a one-off. It won’t be unusual. But it illustrates why it makes no sense whatsoever not to increase the level or capacity of after hours services available here.

So this woman took her teenage daughter to the after-hours in Christchurch.

I won’t go into any medical details other than to say that her daughter was very unwell and, eventually, it was discovered that she was so unwell that she needed surgery.

Which happened. Eventually.

So her mother took her to the after-hours, where they waited six-and-a-half hours to be seen by someone.

They eventually saw a doctor who told them that nothing could be done for them at the after-hours and that they needed to go to the emergency department at Christchurch Hospital.

They went to the hospital and waited through the night until about 4:30 the following morning, when someone came out and told them they were too busy at the emergency department, and they were given a voucher for a free video call consultation.

All up, they had waited about 12 hours to go to the after-hours, be sent to the emergency department, and be told by the emergency department that they were too busy. And then sent home with a voucher for a video consultation.

So they did the video consultation and, at the end of that, they were told they needed to go back to the emergency department.

They went back to the emergency department and saw a doctor, who said that the young woman needed surgery.

This all happened on a Sunday into Monday. So there wasn’t even the Friday and Saturday factor, when after-hours clinics and emergency departments are typically at their busiest.

But, under the Government’s plan, nothing’s going to change here in the Christchurch area. No extra funding. And stories like that one will happen over-and-over again.

So, after waiting all day and night, they had the video consultation about mid-morning and the surgery was done pretty much within 24 hours. That’s how unwell she was.

The Prime Minister says the Government’s plan is all about restoring faith in the country’s healthcare system. He says: When a child’s fever spikes in the middle of the night, parents have somewhere to go without delay. When an elderly person suffers from a fall they won’t be left waiting in pain.”

I don’t know how he can say that to us here in the Christchurch area. I don’t know how he can say that to people living in Waimakariri, who are still waiting for an after-hours.

There’s one on the way, apparently. But it will be another 14 months or so.

And, to be honest, I’ll believe it when I see it because the private outfit behind it has been dragging the chain for quite a while now.

But, even then, that won’t solve the problem of cost. It will still be too expensive for some people to go to the after-hours and they’ll still try to rely on the hospital emergency department.

Which is how things are going to remain here. Which is so wrong.

When it comes to after-hours healthcare, we are being shortchanged big time. And we deserve better.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"I've seen some bad times in this house, but this is one of the lowest I've ever seen. When you go to that sort of standard of language, nothing's beneath you after that, is it?"

That was Winston Peters yesterday after his coalition colleague, Brooke van Velden, used the c-word in parliament.

And I’m with him 100%.

He said he was disgusted that the word was said in Parliament, and he was disgusted that the word was used in a newspaper article at the weekend – which is why it came up for discussion yesterday.

And the timing of it was interesting, because just hours after the c-bomb went off, it was announced that the co-leaders of Te Pati Māori have been suspended for three weeks, and one of their MPs suspended for a week.

This is in relation to them getting out of their seats in Parliament and doing the haka as a protest against David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill.

The part of it that actually got them in strife wasn’t the haka, it was the two-finger gun salute given to David Seymour while they were out of their seats.

If you were to ask me: “What’s worse? The two-finger gun salute in Parliament or an MP using the c-word in Parliament?” I would say that the bad language is way worse. Hands down.

And if you were to ask me: “What’s worse? MPs doing a haka in Parliament or an MP using the c-word in Parliament?” Same. The bad language is way worse than that too.

I’m not defending the Māori Party MPs, because what they did is not the kind of thing I expect in Parliament. At the time, I thought it was a great piece of theatrics, but it’s not appropriate.

Just like I’m not going to defend Green MP Julie Anne Genter crossing the floor that time to go nuts at Matt Doocey. That didn’t meet my expectations of parliamentary behaviour either.

Which is why I think that ACT party deputy leader Brooke van Velden has to be hauled over the coals. Even though she, reportedly, had permission from the Clerk of the House.

And why I agree with Winston Peters and with Judith Collins who have both been saying since yesterday afternoon that we have reached a new low. That behaviour in Parliament has reached a new low.

It’s believed that van Velden is the first MP to intentionally use the c-word in the House. This was when she was replying to a question from Labour about the Government’s pay equity changes.

Or, more to the point, a question referring to the opinion article at the weekend about the pay equity row, where the writer used the c-word.

I don’t know why Labour even brought it up, when it seems to have been silent about the derogatory nature of the article. I thought the article itself was appalling, but the writer seems to have gotten away with it because her employer is backing her to the hilt.

But that doesn’t mean that Parliament should turn a blind eye.

I wasn’t impressed with Speaker Gerry Brownlee's handling of things yesterday. Not once did he interrupt van Velden, only saying afterwards that it might have been better to refrain from using the word. Saying “more discretion” could have been used.

The wet bus ticket treatment from the Speaker doesn’t give me much hope that standards in Parliament are going to improve.

I know people have been saying forever that parliamentarians behave badly but I think Parliament needs to up its game big time.

That is where laws are made. Parliament is where we look-to for leadership. And this is probably a bit old school, but Parliament sets the standard for society.

Some people say it should reflect society, but I say it should set the benchmark, and our politicians should show us what a civil society looks like.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.