Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

A new survey of nearly 1,800 New Zealand patients shows a clear and consistent preference for face-to-face consultations with family doctors, reinforcing the central role of in-person, GP-led care in general practice

The survey, conducted by the General Practice Owners Association (GenPro), gathered feedback from 1,798 patients through GenPro member practices.

The results provide a valuable snapshot of patient sentiment at a time when access targets and digital care models are under active discussion.

Eighty-seven percent of respondents ranked in-clinic, face-to-face consultations as their preferred way to receive care, with telehealth options — including video, email, and patient portals — ranking significantly lower.

“Patients are telling us very clearly that quality care, trust, and reassurance are closely tied to seeing their GP in person,” said Dr Angus Chambers, Chair of the General Practice Owners Association.

“Digital tools absolutely have a place, but they are not a substitute for the clinical judgement, connection, and confidence that come from face-to-face care.”

The survey found that patients particularly value in-person appointments when it matters most. Nearly two in three patients prefer face-to-face care when a physical examination is needed, or if they have new health concerns, the survey says.

“These results highlight that patients see in-person consultations as critical for accurate diagnosis and building trust,” Dr Chambers said. “That’s something a screen cannot replicate.”

While telehealth is useful for convenience, patients don’t see it as a replacement for in-person GP care. Telehealth was most commonly used for:

Repeat prescriptions (60 percent);
Test results (55 percent);
Minor or simple health issues (53 percent).

However, 15 percent of respondents said they did not like telehealth and would not use it at all.

“Telehealth works well for specific, low-complexity tasks,” said Dr Chambers. “But patients are clear — when it comes to real clinical engagement, they want to be in the room with their GP.”
The survey also revealed a strong preference for GP-led care:

96 percent prefer to see a GP when visiting their practice;
48 percent said they always want to see a GP, even when other clinicians are available.

When booking appointments, patients prioritised appointment availability (80 percent) and continuity with the same clinician (66 percent).

Cost and convenience ranked lower, suggesting patients value ongoing relationships and access over speed or price.

“This reinforces what general practice has always known — continuity of care matters,” Dr Chambers said. “Patients want to be known, understood, and cared for by a qualified professional they trust.”

The survey did not collect demographic or regional data and was not intended for formal benchmarking. However, GenPro says the findings highlight the need for patient voices to be front and centre in policy discussions about access targets and models of care.

Dr Chambers said that the Government had lavished subsidies on telehealth providers of telehealth.

“A ‘digital first’ policy might look good on paper and create the impression that the government is taking action. But it will not deliver the outcomes it promises. The money would be far better invested in retaining and recruiting community GPs to deliver the safer, higher-quality care they already provide.”

Researchers are exploring how dark patterns exploit vulnerable consumers, and what New Zealand law can do about it.

Several of the world’s most powerful social media giants, including Meta and YouTube, are on trial in the US over claims their apps were designed to be harmful to young people. For University of Auckland law academics Professor Jodi Gardner and Dr Joshua Yuvaraj, the case connects closely with their research into manipulative advertising, vulnerable users and New Zealand law.

In the chapter Manipulative Advertising and Vitiating Factors, which features in a forthcoming book examining how laws in the Asia-Pacific region are transforming in response to the digital world, the researchers look at the role ‘dark patterns’ play in manipulative advertising.

Dark patterns are digital design tactics intended to confuse users, make it difficult to express their true preferences, or manipulate them into taking certain actions.

There are different types of dark patterns that can influence purchases, for example, forced action, obstruction, sneaking an item into a basket, and scarcity or urgency messaging. These practices are objectively unfair to all consumers, and the researchers say they’re relatively straightforward to recognise and regulate.

Their chapter, however, focuses on a more complex dark pattern: identifying people with potential vulnerabilities, such as by tracking their search habits, and then exploiting these through targeted ads or pop-ups.

The researchers call this ‘vulnerability exploitation’.

“The harm in question doesn’t come from the content of the advertisement itself, but from the fact that it purposefully targets people who are vulnerable and may agree to purchases not in their best interests,” they write.

Gardner and Yuvaraj use three case studies to highlight how vulnerable groups can be targeted by manipulative advertising: children urged to buy online game add-ons before a countdown ends, financially illiterate or disadvantaged people encouraged to invest in digital assets, and women anxious about fertility targeted by egg-freezing companies.

The authors argue that the heightened vulnerability of such groups to dark patterns underscores the need for better consumer protections.

Another issue when it comes to manipulation in gaming is the use of ‘loot boxes’, says Yuvaraj. This is where players can open a virtual crate or similar item, without knowing in advance what kind of game feature or ‘loot’ they will receive. One New Zealand gamer described becoming addicted to the thrill of opening loot boxes and spent about $16,000 doing so.

The Department of Internal Affairs has so far rejected calls to include loot boxes in the definition of gambling, and the researchers say their regulation and that of other in-app purchases will likely need to come under the Fair Trading Act.

Yuvaraj and Gardner say protections in the Act to directly address the exploitation of vulnerable consumers should be expanded. They advocate supplementing ‘statutory unconscionability protection’ with broader ‘unfair practices’ provisions, as seen in recent European Union and Singapore reforms.

They say expanding New Zealand’s statutory consumer protection framework to directly cover ‘vulnerability exploitation’ could bear fruit, as shown by a €1.125 million fine ($NZD2.2 million) given to Epic Games in the Netherlands for targeting children with in-app purchases in the popular game Fortnite.

Another avenue to improve the law in this area is to expand court-developed protections so they better fit modern, app-based and standard-form contracts, and Yuvaraj says courts could intervene when a person’s vulnerability or lack of meaningful choice affects their ability to agree to or understand the impact of a contract or transaction. This could include situations where a business should have been more alert to a person’s vulnerability, or where there’s a power imbalance.

“Given how quickly new technologies are developing that can cause harm to people, such as AI deepfakes, it’s critical to ensure New Zealand’s legal framework is set up to protect the most vulnerable members of society,” he says.

Researchers look back in time to see how people react when lotteries are restricted and an alternative is offered.

Imagine if the money from every Lotto ticket you bought had instead gone into a ‘lottery bond’. You’d still have a chance to win life-changing cash prizes, but your money would also be saved, earning interest and being paid back over time. If you don’t win, you don’t lose it all either.

In Belgium, where University of Auckland finance lecturer Dr Gertjan Verdickt lived most of his life, Lotto draws, like in New Zealand, are broadcast on national television each week, and this sparked his interest in how people respond when governments try to curb gambling.

The Business School researcher and co-author, Amaury De Vicq (University of Groningen), studied what happened after, in 1905, the Dutch government banned the sale and purchase of traditional lotteries but allowed an alternative: ‘lottery bonds’.

“We wanted to look back in time to investigate what happens when a government tries to shift gambling from something addictive and loss-making (lotteries) to something safer such as lottery bonds. How do different socio-economic groups react?”

These ‘lottery bonds’ were a legal fixed-income product that let people invest in a bond while also going into a prize draw. Buyers were guaranteed their money back, plus interest, with the added chance of winning. Similar prize-linked products operate in several countries today, with different designs.

Verdickt says this kind of government-run bond scheme could be attractive in New Zealand.

“Lotto is often defended because it funds community projects, which is fantastic, but it can disproportionately draw spending from people on lower incomes. Maybe the government could move towards supporting people to put money into something where they get a safe return, and the chance for a big win.

“A premium government-led bond-style product, different to the solely prize-based Bonus Bonds which wound up in New Zealand in 2020, could fund public projects, while allowing New Zealanders to grow their money rather than lose money week after week.”

So how did everyday Dutch people react when regular Lotto was banned?

The researchers drew on Dutch inheritance tax archives to create detailed portfolio holdings for 3,618 people, allowing them to track how different groups adjusted their investments after the policy change.

The researchers found that overall, less wealthy people put more money into lottery bonds, while wealthy individuals decreased their holdings.

“Although we didn't observe people’s prior lottery purchases, the magnitude of the move towards lottery bonds indicates that these bonds could be considered a substitute for gambling.”

Age and location mattered too. The researchers found younger people were less likely to take up lottery bonds, while older individuals showed a stronger move into them after the policy change.
The lack of interest in lottery bonds among younger individuals could be seen as a success in the Dutch government’s attempt to curb gambling, says Verdickt.

Lotteries and other forms of gambling remained legal in neighbouring Belgium and Germany, and the researchers say poorer people living farther from those borders were more likely to invest in lottery bonds than those closer by, who may have been tempted across the border.

Channelling the urge to gamble

The regulation of gambling has always been a challenge for governments, say the researchers, pitting concerns for financial stability and addictions against consumer demand.

“Our study shows the Dutch government’s lottery bonds were helpful; they channelled people’s urge to gamble into an instrument that also encouraged saving.”

He says governments like New Zealand’s might consider promoting a form of ‘lottery bond’ as a safer alternative to playing Lotto.

“Of course, these days people have so many options online and in-person when it comes to gambling. You can’t ban the urge to gamble, but you can guide people towards safer channels.

“The lottery bond offered by the Dutch government, for example, wasn’t a perfect investment, but it did provide a better option for many people.”

Read the working paper: Financial Regulation and Household Portfolio Reallocation: The Impact of the 1905 Dutch Lottery Ban: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5261473

For the third year, Te Kāhui Tika Tangata Human Rights Commission has surveyed New Zealanders’ awareness, understanding and attitudes to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, human rights and New Zealand’s constitution.

The survey found that a sense of belonging, respect for human rights, and an understanding of our history are overwhelmingly viewed by New Zealanders as important to Aotearoa’s future. It also highlighted the importance of respectful discussion about Te Tiriti (viewed as important by 78%), positive relationships between Māori and the Crown (83%), and legal and constitutional protection of Te Tiriti (70%).

Conducted by Horizon Research on behalf of the Commission in December 2025, it follows similar surveys in 2024 and 2023.

“Many of the results tell a different story to the narrative of division we have been fed over the past two years,” says the Commission's Indigenous Rights Governance Partner, Dayle Takitimu. “The majority of New Zealanders value Māori culture and traditions, care about the real histories of Aotearoa, and want respectful discussions about Te Tiriti.”  

In December the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination called on New Zealand to uphold Te Tiriti, making a specific recommendation to Government to “take measures to counter misinformation and divisive narratives regarding the Treaty and to promote public understanding of its role in advancing harmony and equality”.  The Committee raised concerns about a range of recent government initiatives and warned that weakening Treaty protections “could undermine progress towards reconciliation and risk entrenching historical, structural, and systemic discrimination against Māori”.    

“It’s our hope that this data reassures New Zealanders that they are more united than they think,” adds Takitimu. “We want people to share these numbers far and wide, even the areas where we can do better. Let’s have a discussion about how political rhetoric and misinformation moves us, and how we can all have more constructive discussions in future — tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti.”

What New Zealanders think is important for the future of their country

• 70% that Te Tiriti is protected in our laws and constitution.
• 78% respectful discussion of Te Tiriti.
• 87% everyone knows the country’s history.
• 83% positive Crown/Māori relationships.
• 79% protecting and celebrating Māori culture, language and identity.
• 74% harmonious race relations through honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
• 91% that human rights are protected in New Zealand’s laws and constitution.
• 93% that everyone feels a sense of belonging.

* Horizon Research Human Rights and Te Tiriti/Treaty Issues December 2025

The survey also asked respondents to rate their own level of knowledge around Tiriti issues, as well as their awareness of a range of statements. The findings show that people feel well informed about Te Tiriti and have high levels of awareness of a range of basic Treaty facts.

For example, there is strong awareness of the links between Te Tiriti and human rights, with 88% aware that Te Tiriti relates to people’s human rights, and 80% aware that globally agreed human rights standards recognise and protect the rights of Indigenous peoples. Four in five people are aware that the Waitangi Tribunal has made expert findings on what was agreed to through Te Tiriti.  

The Waitangi Tribunal also emerged as the most trusted source of accurate information about Te Tiriti / the Treaty, trusted by 45% of respondents. The Human Rights Commission is named as the fourth most trusted source of accurate information (31%). 17% of respondents said they don’t trust any source.

Of note, areas rating highest in terms of lack of awareness included:

In relation to the signing of the Declaration of Independence/ He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga in 1835 (with 15% of respondents not at all aware of this)

That the Waitangi Tribunal has made expert findings that Māori didn’t give up their sovereignty when they signed the Treaty / Te Tiriti (14% not at all aware)

The tino rangatiratanga guaranteed in the Treaty / Te Tiriti closely aligns with the human right to self-determination (13% not at all aware)

The fact that current checks and balances don’t stop Parliament from passing laws that breach human rights or Te Tiriti (13% not at all aware)

The fact that around 500 Rangatira signed Te Tiriti, while 39 signed the English language Treaty (12% not at all aware).

The findings will be used by the Commission to inform its awareness-raising, research and education activities.

Click to download the full report: Horizon Research Human Rights and Te Tiriti/Treaty Issues December 2025 : https://hrc.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=96944bb5abdb8a8e53e15e696&id=3b0524cead&e=f1c48a8452

Source: Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa – PSNA

PSNA says for once the New Zealand government has made a good decision for Gaza by refusing to join Trump’s Board of Peace. 

But PSNA also says New Zealand must continue to push for complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, full resumption of humanitarian aid and a realisation of the basic human rights for Palestinians everywhere, including a right of return.

Co-Chair of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa, John Minto says a complete absence of any elected Palestinians in implementing the Gaza Peace Plan doomed it from the start.

“But then Trump mission-crept his Board of Peace into a personal global fiefdom, as an alternative to the United Nations. His claim to bring peace to the whole world, sounds as imbecilic as a speech from a Miss World contestant.”

Minto says the New Zealand government must at last realise that the Israeli government is only interested in destroying Palestinian resistance so it can ethnically cleanse Gaza.

“Netanyahu admits the October peace agreement, which the Board of Peace is ostensibly founded on, is ‘largely symbolic’.”

“Israel has re-expanded its area of control to up to three-quarters of the entire Gaza Strip and its ministers are saying Israel will never withdraw, whether the Board of Peace likes it or not.”

“Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has just stated Israel will not permit reconstruction to start in Gaza until he is satisfied Hamas has completely disarmed and surrendered.”

“The IDF has continued to bomb and shoot Palestinians in Gaza almost every day.  It is bombing Lebanon, despite a peace agreement there too.”

“According to the Independent, Israel is also recruiting and arming Palestinian gangs ‘running rampant’ in Gaza to attack Hamas.”

Minto says perhaps the most important issue the New Zealand government must consider is that achievement of Palestinian rights can’t be isolated to Gaza, but must include, in particular, the West Bank, where instances of killings of Palestinians by illegal settlers are surging.

“Every previous attempt in the past nearly 50 years, and Israel made sure they all failed, from Camp David onwards, was ostensibly based on a comprehensive and universal achievement of Palestinian national rights.”

“Real peace can only occur if these are realised, and not subject to Israeli whim and veto,” Minto says.

“Trump’s plan for his ‘Riviera of the Middle East’, is built on top of the bones of at least seventy thousand Palestinians, a number that even Israel now admits is true.”

“If they are lucky, living Palestinians will get to be janitors and bellhops.”

“New Zealand has wisely chosen to walk away from this madness.  But nonetheless our government can’t use this decision as an excuse to walk away from Palestine in order to wash its hands of complicity with a continuing genocide.”

“Sanctions on Israel would be a good start.”

John Minto

Co-Chair PSNA

Source: Palestine Forum of New Zealand – PFNZ

The Palestine Forum of New Zealand is deeply concerned by RNZ’s headline “Twin protests set to cause traffic woes for Auckland”, which misrepresents the facts and creates a false equivalence between two fundamentally different actions.

For more than two years, pro-Palestinian protests in Auckland, including regular gatherings in Aotea Square, have been conducted peacefully, lawfully, and without causing traffic disruption. These protests are well-established, responsibly organised, and coordinated with authorities. They have consistently respected public safety and the wider community.

In contrast, Destiny Church publicly signalled an intention to illegally occupy the Auckland Harbour Bridge, a major transport artery and critical piece of infrastructure. Such an action would have caused significant disruption and posed serious safety risks.

Framing these two actions as “twin protests” equally responsible for potential traffic disruption is misleading and inaccurate. It unfairly associates a peaceful social justice movement with chaos that it neither planned nor caused.

Responsible journalism requires clarity, context, and precision — particularly when reporting on public protest. Headlines matter. They shape public perception and can unjustly stigmatise communities and movements that have acted responsibly and within the law.

We call on RNZ to reflect on this framing and to ensure that future reporting accurately distinguishes between peaceful, lawful protest and planned unlawful disruption.

The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of democracy in Aotearoa New Zealand. It must not be undermined through careless or misleading representation.

Te Kāhui Tika Tangata Human Rights Commission welcomes today’s historic cross-party decision to progress modern slavery legislation in Aotearoa New Zealand.  

Modern slavery affects millions of people globally, with an estimated 8,000 people impacted in New Zealand, including those forced to work against their will, trapped in jobs through debt, or coerced or deceived into exploitative work away from home.

To advance the Modern Slavery Bill, Parliament has used the ‘Rule of 61’ for the first time, which allows backbench Members of Parliament to introduce legislation without going through the random ballot system if they enough have cross-party consensus.  

The cross-party support to place the Bill on the Parliamentary agenda marks a significant moment for New Zealand’s democratic process and demonstrates political cooperation and a shared commitment to protecting people from modern slavery.

“Advancing a modern slavery law is an important step forward for human rights in Aotearoa New Zealand,” said Professor Gail Pacheco, Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner. “We commend MPs from across the house for working together to confront modern slavery.”

Professor Pacheco said the proposed legislation would strengthen transparency and accountability — two critical tools for preventing exploitation and abuse.  

“As this bill progresses, we look forward to engaging constructively with the Select Committee to help ensure the legislation is robust and effective,” Professor Pacheco added. “Today’s decision is an encouraging signal for both democracy and human rights in New Zealand.”