Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Covering period of Monday 2nd – Thursday 5th February
 
January 2026 saw sweltering heat early in the month with intense rain to follow. Some long-standing records were broken:

Tauranga Airport Wettest Day (9am to 9am) with 274.0mm on 21st Jan.*
Timaru Airport Wettest January with 135.7mm.
Tauranga Airport Wettest January with 408.9mm.
Kerikeri Airport Warmest January Day (9am to 9am) 32.7°C on 11th Jan.
Whitianga Airport Wettest Day (9am to 9am) 247.6mm on 21st Jan.

Records began in 1910 for Tauranga, 1956 for Timaru, 1978 for Kerikeri and 1987 for Whitianga.

Today (Monday), the upper South Island celebrates Nelson Anniversary Day. While cloud and rain move in from the west, many have had a fine morning in the east. The remainder of the day will be dry for Marlborough. It’s a different story for the rest of the country.

MetService Meteorologist Michael Pawley adds “There’s a soupy mess of humid air covering much of the North Island today, and a low-pressure system moving in from the Tasman Sea. Rain is trekking up the South Island today, getting heavier about central New Zealand tomorrow as the low crosses over. There is even the possibility of snow above 1,200 meters about Canterbury from Tuesday afternoon.”

MetService has a Heavy Rain Watch about the Westland ranges south of Fox Glacier until this evening. Tomorrow there is a Heavy Rain Watch for Marlborough south of Seddon, and Canterbury north of the Rangitata River, which has a high chance of being upgraded to an Orange Rain Warning.  In addition, there is a Strong Wind Watch for southeasterlies about Fiordland, Westland and Grey District.

MetService has heat alerts for Napier and Hastings today, which are expected to reach 32°C and 33°C respectively. Much of the North Island has a muggy night ahead. Napier has an overnight minimum temperature of 23°C, and Auckland will only drop to 21°C.

On Tuesday, the maximum temperature for Canterbury will be in the early hours of the morning. Christchurch will drop to a chilly 12°C for most of the day.

* Tauranga experienced a wetter 24-hour period between 17th and 18th May 2005; however, this rainfall was spread across two official reporting days, as daily rainfall is measured from 9am to 9am for climatological records.

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