Higher awareness of the benefits of menopause hormone therapy (MHT) has led to rising demand for treatment – so much so that manufacturers can’t keep up and New Zealand’s drug-funding agency Pharmac had to temporarily ration supplies.

Most women today are prescribed body-identical hormones, including transdermal estradiol (patch or gel) and progesterone capsules, to treat menopause symptoms including hot flushes or night sweats. Estrogen relieves symptoms, while progesterone protects the lining of the uterus and may have benefits for sleep.

I believe there are two main drivers for the surge in demand. One is greater confidence in MHT, following reassuring long-term data from the Women’s Health Initiative trial and other studies.

The second is more open dialogue about menopause. Midlife women are now more aware of therapies and their additional benefit for bone health and they are demanding better care.

But apart from the acute shortages in supply, there are other significant gaps in research and the training of health professionals.

Changes in MHT over time

The initial Women’s Health Initiative trial was published in 2002.

The results scared women off using MHT for decades because the trial found an increased risk of breast cancer, stroke and blood clots in women taking combination hormone therapy for five years, compared to a placebo. It also suggested hormone therapy did not protect from heart attacks as hypothesised.

However, long-term follow-up findings are reassuring, as are newer studies. The 18-year data from the Women’s Health Initiative trial found overall mortality was no different between people who took five years of MHT versus placebo.

Studies of transdermal estrogen treatments such as patches and gels have found little to no association with stroke and blood clots.

Subsequent changes in clinical guidelines have been significant.

When I was training to become a gynaecology specialist in Canada in the late 1990s, we offered hormone therapy to everyone. But after the Women’s Health Initiative trial, we offered it only to women with the most severe symptoms. Later, we offered it to more women but at the lowest dose and for the shortest time possible.

Now, I offer MHT to all menopausal women with symptoms after full discussion of risks (primarily breast cancer) and benefits (bone health).

The current recommendation is to use the dose required to achieve full symptom relief. The duration of MHT treatment should be personalised and the decision to continue or stop should be made on an annual basis between a well-informed woman and her health practitioner.

MHT can now also be considered a first-line therapy to prevent menopause-related bone loss.

Improving menopause care

These changes have led to more MHT prescriptions compared to two decades ago.

Back then, following the initial trial results, prescriptions dropped. Doctors got out of practice of prescribing MHT and new doctors didn’t learn. There was little teaching about menopause at medical school.

This means that some doctors don’t have the training or experience to adequately discuss menopausal symptoms with their patients, prescribe treatments and optimise menopause management.

Currently, four out of ten medical schools in the UK don’t have mandatory menopause education in the curriculum and a survey in the US found most obstetrics and gynaecology training programmes lack modules on menopause.

To answer the call for better care in a New Zealand context, we have developed a short online training course on menopause care for nurses, nurse practitioners and doctors and new content for medical students. We are also advocating for more funded MHT options.

But we are missing evidence about women’s experience in New Zealand. We lack up-to-date data on who is using MHT, what women want from their health practitioners and how symptoms affect whānau, workplaces and communities.

Most studies on MHT include women who are already in menopause (12 months or more without a menstrual period). There are no long-term, high-quality trials of women in perimenopause (the transition to menopause, when symptoms start), nor of women taking contemporary MHT regimens – the estrogen patches and progesterone capsules affected by recent shortages.

Currently, counselling is also based on older studies of outdated therapies in demographics that don’t reflect New Zealand’s population.

New Zealand released a women’s health strategy in 2023 with the goal of “supporting women to live longer in better health”, prioritising better support for menopause. But women continue to report being dismissed by their health practitioners.

We need New Zealand-specific research about menopause and better education and training for health practitioners because midlife women are no longer willing to tolerate undiagnosed and untreated menopausal symptoms.

The menopause course received a small unrestricted educational grant from a pharmaceutical company.

The US state of Florida has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and Sam Altman, alleging the tech giant and its CEO put profit over public safety with its flagship artificial intelligence (AI) product, ChatGPT.

The lawsuit, filed in Florida state court on Monday local time by Florida’s attorney general James Uthmeier, is one of the most significant enforcement actions brought by a state attorney against an AI company to date.

It comes as OpenAI and other big tech companies are embroiled in a growing number of legal cases related to the alleged harm their products have caused.

Six key elements

The complaint opens with a screenshot of OpenAI’s own parental-control page, which states that ChatGPT was “built with safety in mind”. Then, in a standalone paragraph, the State answers with two words: “Not so”.

This signals the central allegation of the case: that OpenAI sold ChatGPT to the public as safe and reliable, while knowing it could cause serious harm

More specifically, there are six key themes to Florida’s case against OpenAI. The first is that the company engaged in deceptive safety marketing, assuring parents the platform is safe for teenage use, while not clearly disclosing that ChatGPT can be wrong.

Second, despite OpenAI’s marketing, ChatGPT is unreliable. A 2025 study, for example, found AI assistants, such as ChatGPT, misrepresent the news roughly 45% of the time. Similarly, despite marketing suggesting ChatGPT can handle financial affairs, ChatGPT has failed in meeting basic accounting standards and provided incorrect tax advice to users.

The third element of the case is the public safety threat. The danger to young people in particular is illustrated by the tragic story of Adam Raine, a 16-year-old who died by suicide in April 2025 after engaging in long conversations with ChatGPT. When Adam expressed suicidal thoughts, ChatGPT responded that it “won’t try to talk you out of your feelings”. It helped Adam plan a “beautiful suicide” and even offered to write his suicide note for him.

Why would a product behave this way? Because, Uthmeier argues, it was built to.

OpenAI designed ChatGPT to be highly agreeable, to say “yes” roughly ten times as often as “no”, according to a Washington Post review of 47,000 conversations. This forms the fourth element of the case – commercial exploitation through sycophancy. In other words, ChatGPT optimistically parrots back users’ responses in order to to manipulate them into deeper conversations, regardless of truth or safety.

But according to the lawsuit, even ordinary use carries a cost: it weakens people’s brain activity and critical thinking skills (also known as cognitive atrophy). This is the fifth element of the case.

The sixth and final element is knowledge – specifically, the knowledge of Samuel Altman. According to Uthmeier, since at least 2023, OpenAI’s own documents warned that the model could coach people on committing crimes, but Altman overruled the safety staff.

These six elements paint a picture of a product marketed as safe, engineered to be addictive, and known by its own makers to be dangerous – yet sold to us, anyway.

Altman is at the centre of that picture. The complaint reconstructs his career and reaches for an April 2026 New Yorker investigation and testimony from the recent legal battle between Elon Musk and OpenAI to depict a man, who in Uthmeier’s telling, repeatedly chose speed over safety.

That is why Uthmeier is asking the court to hold Altman personally liable for “his utter disregard for the risk to human life”.

Pay for past harms

Uthmeier is asking the court to declare that OpenAI broke the law, then to order the company to stop – permanently – its unlawful practices.

He wants the company barred from collecting children’s data without parental consent and the safeguards that should come with it, and barred from misrepresenting or staying silent about ChatGPT’s risks.

On top of the injunctions, the state is seeking civil penalties of up to US$10,000 per violation for OpenAI’s alleged wilful violation of the the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Uthmeier said penalties could total billions of dollars.

In other words: pay for the past harms and change the product going forward.

In a statement to The Conversation, an OpenAI spokesperson pointed to the company’s “industry leading protections and policies” regarding user safety.

In particular we built safety for minors directly into our products, including a more protective experience specifically for minors, an age prediction tool, defaulting users whose age we are not confident into our more protective experience, and giving parents tools to monitor their kids use of AI.

Adding to a growing pile

This lawsuit is a significant development, but it has not arrived in a vacuum.

Across the US, the courts are filling with cases accusing tech companies of harming young people. In April, for example, Uthmeier launched a criminal investigation into OpenAI over the chatbot’s alleged role in a shooting at Florida State University.

Some juries have started to side with the plaintiffs.

In March 2026, for example, a New Mexico jury hit Meta with a US$375 million penalty in a child safety case. Days later, a jury in Los Angeles found Meta and Google liable in a landmark trial over social media addiction.

This case rides the same current. But it broadens the scope by alleging Altman himself should be personally responsible.

Uthmeier is demanding a trial by jury.

Alexandra Andhov is the director of ALTeR (Center for Advancing Law and Technology Responsibly) at the University of Auckland. She received funding from the Independent Research Fund Denmark for the "PROFIT" Project (Gaps and Opportunities in Corporate Governance of Big Tech Companies) to research big tech companies.

Summer heatwaves are currently receiving a lot of attention in Europe because they now cause more deaths than floods or storms.

But winters are also warming. While they are generally less deadly, they influence and disrupt human and natural systems in many subtle ways.

Aotearoa New Zealand has experienced a particularly warm start to this winter, with record high June temperatures in the capital and warm conditions across the country.

Many will welcome the unseasonably warm weather, but milder winters have a range of impacts, especially for plants and insects.

Extra winter growth, but loss of carbon

In forests, warmer temperatures can extend the growing season of trees.

Usually, many trees are dormant during winter as conditions are too cold for growth. But our ongoing measurements of kauri tree growth in Auckland indicate trees have continued to grow throughout recent winters.

One might assume a longer growing season would increase carbon uptake and storage in trees. However, overall carbon changes are actually negative because warmer temperatures also increase respiration, which returns more carbon to the atmosphere.

In Aotearoa, few plant species lose their leaves in winter. But according to traditional Māori knowledge (mātauranga Māori), flowering time has changed and fruit biomass has declined with warming in forests of the central North Island since the 1950s.

This has had a negative impact on the numbers, breeding rates and health of kererū (native wood pigeons) and has reduced nutrient cycling in the soil.

Risk of new invasions

Insects are also very sensitive to winter temperatures.

Like trees, many insects have a dormant period during colder months. Some insects from warmer climates have established as pests in Aotearoa, but they usually struggle to survive cold conditions. As winters warm, the numbers of species able to get through the cold season is increasing.

For instance, in temperate climates such as in New Zealand, wasp colonies have a strong seasonal cycle. Wasp numbers increase during spring after the queen emerges from overwintering and lays eggs. The workers expand the colony during summer but when temperatures drop in autumn, most of them die off.

However, in warmer conditions, sightings of winter-active workers have increased in Aotearoa. This means a warming climate will likely lead to higher wasp numbers and increased ecological and economic impacts.

There are a range of other invertebrate pests that may become more problematic in natural systems, plantation forests and agricultural and horticultural settings as winters warm. This includes rising numbers of parasites of sheep and cattle, more insect pests in plantation forests, increased risk of overwintering of the Queensland fruit fly and bigger range sizes for mosquitoes and ant and cattle ticks.

Shrinking alpine refuge

New invasive plant species from subtropical regions may also be able to establish or expand their ranges and shift into the alpine zone.

Similarly, the upward expansion of invasive mammals will reduce the availability of refuge areas for native birds, including the endangered rock wren.

Known as “thermal squeeze”, the movement of rats and stoats to higher elevations reduces the availability of safe spaces for large alpine birds such as the kea, exacerbating the risk of extinction.

The alpine zone is especially vulnerable to winter warming because plants and animals living there are highly adapted to the specific environmental conditions and are often poorly prepared for invasive predators or competitors.

Horticultural winners and losers

In the horticulture industry, cold winter nights are important as a trigger for spring flowering. Economically important fruits such as apples, avocados and kiwifruit may not flower well and have poor-quality fruit under future climates.

Potatoes and onions are also sensitive to warming conditions because heat stress reduces the quality of tubers and produces smaller bulbs, causing lower yields of both crops.

Plant breeding and gene technologies offer opportunities to develop fruits and vegetables that are better prepared for a warmer world.

And there is some good news in other areas, including that flea infestations are predicted to decline in regions where warming is associated with drying. There may also be opportunities for the establishment of new crops, such as bananas.

As the climate continues to warm, there is more to learn about the impacts and options for adaptation in Aotearoa. Research needs to focus on finding solutions for native species and primary industries because healthy ecosystems are essential for a healthy economy and thriving communities.

Cate Macinnis-Ng has received funding from The Royal Society Te Apārangi, MBIE and Te Pūnaha Matatini. She is a lead author for the IPCC Assessment Round 7 Working Group II report.

Stopping judges from considering “good character” references when sentencing sexual offenders – as New Zealand’s National Party has pledged to if re-elected – may sound like a niche legal reform.

But it targets a real and longstanding issue in the country’s criminal justice system – and one that has drawn renewed public attention and debate over recent months.

In the courts, character references are typically used to show a defendant has no prior history of similar offending. Lawyers may point to the absence of previous convictions and present supportive letters describing the assault as out of character.

Such evidence can be introduced by defendants convicted of – or pleading guilty to – sexual offending in a bid to reduce their sentence, alongside other mitigating discounts that judges can apply under the Sentencing Act.

National argues that its proposed reform, which comes alongside a separate petition and campaign, would lead to tougher sentences and stop offenders benefiting from their personal reputation or social standing.

Some defence lawyers, however, have argued judges already treat such evidence cautiously in serious sexual offending cases, and warn that removing it entirely could undermine the principle that courts should consider all relevant circumstances at sentencing.

In any case, the move would represent a meaningful change. But the discussion also raises wider questions about New Zealand’s sentencing framework itself – particularly when it comes to how much discretion judges are presently given.

The problems with ‘good character’ references

As Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith noted when announcing the move last month, good character references are often used to argue the offending was “the exception, not the rule”.

In sexual violence cases, this can involve employers, relatives or community figures portraying the defendant as an otherwise respectable person who made a one-off mistake.

Rape cases, particularly, illustrate the flaws in this type of reasoning. Presenting evidence of a defendant’s good character can reinforce the myth that there is a meaningful distinction between a “real rapist” and someone who has merely committed rape.

This framing also risks minimising the seriousness of sexual violence and obscuring the reality that most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim, often in private places and with little or no physical force.

Another problem is that this evidence can be deeply retraumatising for victims, who may have to watch the sentencing judge consider – and sometimes even credit – claims that the assault was less serious, or rather something more akin to a misunderstanding.

If the policy choice is between continuing to treat prior “good character” as mitigation in sexual violence cases, or scrapping it, the latter would arguably appear the sensible call.

But abolishing this single mitigating factor from the Sentencing Act – at least as it applies to sexual offences – still leaves many other issues within the legislation to address.

The case for wider reform

In another development last month, an advisory group was established to bring lived experience and leadership expertise into government decision-making around family and sexual violence prevention.

While this marks an important step, overseas experience suggests New Zealand could go much further in reforming its sentencing system.

Countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and many Australian states, for instance, use sentencing commissions to develop formal sentencing guidelines.

These bodies draw on expertise from criminology, psychology, statistics and criminal law to analyse research and sentencing data, then produce guidance on how different offences and offenders should be sentenced.

The resulting guidelines help to eliminate disparities across offences, offenders, judges, and geographic regions, while also ensuring transparency in sentencing policy. They also tend to rely more on evidence and risk-based assessment than on broad and often ambiguous factors gradually developed through court decisions.

By contrast, two-decade-old Sentencing Act appears antiquated.

Aggravating and mitigating factors referenced within the legislation are often intuitive, vague and morally framed, rather than being clearly defined or grounded in evidence.

Importantly, they also provide little meaningful guidance for how judges should apply them consistently across cases involving different levels of harm, premeditation or remorse on the part of the offender.

Leaving sentencing judges with such a high level of unguided discretion risks allowing implicit biases – which all people possess – to influence sentencing decisions.

The result is that subjective assessments about who seems dangerous, remorseful or respectable can end up driving sentencing decisions, rather than being based on consistent, evidence-based assessments of harm, proportionality and risk to public safety.

Removing “good character” mitigation in sexual violence cases may therefore be worthwhile. But if New Zealand wants a better sentencing system, much broader reform is required.

Carrie Leonetti does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Three months into the war in Iran, the largest disruption to New Zealand’s oil supply in living memory appears to have done nothing to change the government’s approach to transport.

Budget 2026 spends more on roads, less on rail and nothing on walking or cycling. It also raids bus decarbonisation to fund a review of pipes.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis warned ahead of budget day there would be no extravagance this year – and the government’s now-released spending on transport and infrastructure confirms it.

The fiscal logic underpinning its priorities assumes the Middle East conflict and its impacts on fuel markets will ease in time for a projected operating surplus by 2028/29.

Whether that happens remains to be seen. What is apparent, however, is that this budget does little to reduce the reliance of New Zealand’s transport system on fossil fuels – and instead reinforces it.

Roads of ‘national sacrifice’?

Te Waihanga, the government’s own infrastructure commission, has warned for years that the Roads of National Significance programme is unaffordable.

Budget 2026 commits NZ$1.773 billion for a single one of them, Cambridge to Piarere, to be supplemented further from the National Land Transport Fund. Another $400 million has been set aside for State Highway resilience.

Combined, that’s $2.173 billion, about three quarters of all newly allocated transport capital spending, channelled to roads and highways.

Metropolitan rail gets $106.9 million for “one year of additional capital” to clear overdue renewals in Auckland and Wellington. A further $598.2 million in capital funding and $477.1 million in operating funding is tagged for the national rail freight network.

Among the spending across all infrastructure, not a single cent is specifically earmarked for walking and cycling.

While public transport users will get no fare relief and no expanded service, the Treasury floats the option of deferring the planned 12-cents-per-litre increase to Fuel Excise Duty and Road User Charges scheduled for January 2027.

Each six-month deferral, the Treasury reports, would cost about $300 million in foregone revenue.

For comparison, $300 million for six months of relief at the pump is roughly the entire annual fare revenue generated by every public transport service in the country combined.

The same $300 million spent on free or subsidised fares would deliver a full year of relief to people who do not own cars, cannot afford to run them, or have chosen not to.

The government has also signalled it’s willing to forgo road revenue, while telling the country an equal or lower expenditure to reduce public transport fares is too expensive.

The budget does include a Public Transport Fuel Costs Support initiative, also linked to the Middle East conflict. However, the amount has been withheld on the grounds of “commercial sensitivity and negotiations”, making it difficult to assess the scale of the support being offered.

To help fund its transport package – comprising $456 million in operating spending and $2.708 billion in capital – the government is reclaiming money from existing programmes.

That includes clawing back $12.2 million from initiatives such as the now-discontinued local-road Crown Resilience Programme. It is also redirecting $170 million from the current Rail Network Investment Programme toward new metro and freight renewals.

Most pointedly, it draws $2.5 million from the Public Transport Bus Decarbonisation Fund and the Older Drivers Licence Holder Subsidy, redirecting both to a review of underground infrastructure assets in another portfolio.

While the amount is relatively small, taking money from one of the cheapest near-term ways to reduce urban transport emissions and fuel use is still notable.

Long-term risks, limited investment

Outside transport, the fiscal picture for infrastructure is no less tight.

There is no named freshwater, stormwater, wastewater or drinking-water capital package. The government allocates $29.7 million to oversee development levies, $294 million in operating spending and $13.4 million in capital spending for resource management reforms, and $400 million in tagged contingency for council housing-growth incentives.

Treasury’s own forecasts show core Crown spending on water infrastructure falling from $127 million in 2026 to $5 million per year by 2028. After a decade of weather losses already surpassing $15 billion, the country’s stormwater and flood resilience response is a dwindling budget line.

There is one new acknowledgement of the oil supply problem itself: $150 million is allocated to support additional fuel supply, including fuel reserves. The government has chosen, again, to insure people against an oil-shocked world rather than reduce exposure to it.

The Budget papers also identify several major future fiscal pressures tied to transport infrastructure.

Transport project funding is logged as a $5 billion to $10 billion risk. National Land Transport Fund sustainability is another $2 billion to $5 billion. Most of these costs sit outside the forecast horizon, which is to say the next government will pay them.

Arguably, this could not be called a transformative transport or infrastructure budget. Rather, it is a fiscally cautious package that continues to prioritise road investment over measures aimed at reducing fuel dependence or expanding transport alternatives.

Public transport subsidies and cycleways that could help reduce exposure to oil shocks are largely absent. Buses that might otherwise have been electrified will continue relying on imported diesel at a time the budget itself acknowledges fuel supply vulnerabilities.

Meanwhile, Treasury forecasts show stormwater infrastructure spending falling sharply over the coming years despite the growing costs of extreme weather events.

New Zealand’s long-term transport and infrastructure challenges are well understood. Budget 2026, however, suggests the government has chosen, at least for now, to prioritise fiscal restraint and existing transport priorities over much-needed structural change.

Timothy Welch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

This week’s magnitude 7.8 earthquake in the Philippines came with scenes familiar to New Zealanders: collapsed buildings, shattered facades and streets strewn with rubble.

Earthquakes of such force test buildings to their extreme limits. As occurred this week, and in Christchurch in 2011, some ultimately fail with tragic consequences.

But, for structural engineers, preventing collapse is only part of the challenge. Increasingly, we are also asking what happens to buildings that survive major earthquakes.

Many modern buildings are designed to protect lives, but often at the cost of damage that can take years and millions of dollars to repair. Some quake-damaged buildings have ultimately been demolished despite never having come close to collapse.

On top of this, the construction sector is under growing pressure to shrink its substantial share of global greenhouse emissions. This is raising the need for building systems that are sustainable and resilient.

Last month, in one of the country’s most demanding full-scale earthquake tests, we assessed an emerging timber-based technology to find that it can meet all these requirements.

Buildings that bounce back

Over the past decade, many people will have heard growing talk about timber as a low-carbon alternative to concrete and steel. While we might picture traditional timber-framed houses, modern mass timber construction is very different.

One of the most promising products – cross-laminated timber (CLT) – is made by bonding layers of timber boards together at right angles, creating large structural panels that can be used to construct multi-storey buildings.

As a renewable material, it stores carbon absorbed during tree growth and can reduce the embodied emissions of buildings compared with concrete and steel. It is also well suited to prefabrication, with entire building components or modules manufactured off-site and assembled later, reducing construction time, waste and disruption.

During earthquake shaking, engineered timber structures have been found to perform extremely well. But less understood is how these new modular mass timber buildings accommodate movement.

To model this, we developed a system that allows storeys to move relative to one another during an earthquake, rather than forcing the entire building to act as a rigid unit.

This controlled movement reduces the strain placed on the building during an earthquake. Once the shaking stops, the system helps the structure return to its original position, reducing damage and improving the chances it can be used again quickly.

Putting timber to the test

To understand how our system performs under realistic earthquake conditions, we built a full-scale, modular CLT building and tested it on the University of Auckland’s “shake table” simulator.

While the test building was physically two storeys high, additional weight was added at roof level to replicate the forces experienced by a typical three-storey building – one of the most common forms of medium-density housing in New Zealand.

The simulation itself subjected the building to a series of increasingly demanding earthquake shaking, reflecting what would be experienced from both distant and near-source events.

The building performed as hoped, with the connection system allowing each storey to move in a controlled way during the simulated earthquakes. This helped absorb and dissipate energy while protecting the main timber structure from damage.

Perhaps most importantly, the building returned to its original position after the shaking stopped, rather than being left permanently tilted or displaced. Engineers call this “self-centring” – a key feature of buildings designed not just to survive earthquakes, but to recover from them.

And while the building moved about during the shaking, the main timber structure remained undamaged. In a real-world earthquake, that could mean lower repair costs, less disruption and a faster return to normal use.

There were, however, questions our test could not answer. For instance, it did not assess how non-structural elements such as wall linings, services and interior finishes – which are often damaged during earthquakes – would perform in a real building.

Nevertheless, the results provide encouraging evidence that modular timber buildings can be designed not only to withstand major earthquakes, but also to recover from them with minimal damage.

The next step is to incorporate the technology into complete building systems and assess its long-term performance, practicality and commercial viability.

If those hurdles can be overcome, it could help support a new generation of low-carbon buildings that are safer, more resilient and quicker to return to service after major earthquakes.

As countries such as New Zealand continue to grapple with both seismic risk and the need to reduce construction emissions, innovations like these may help show that resilience and sustainability do not have to come at the expense of one another.

Ashkan Hashemi receives funding from Natural Hazard Commission Toka Tū Ake.

From personal health portals to AI assistants that draft emails, the digital age has simplified endless everyday tasks.

But for many older New Zealanders, the rapid march of technology has helped build a wall rather than open doors. Navigating online forms, changing apps, disappearing face-to-face services and the constant threat of scams can be daunting.

There is a term for this unease: technostress. Once used to describe the anxiety and frustration felt by workers, it has more recently been applied to older populations struggling in our digital-by-default world.

While older people’s overall digital engagement has grown over the years, about half of over 50s feel they are being left behind by modern technology.

Amid a planned public sector shake-up that would further digitise services, more than 40% of people older than 60 face barriers for accessing online government information.

More than ever, digital inclusion has become a necessity for older people to access essential services and maintain social connections. Without it, there are serious implications for their psychological, social, cognitive, physical and financial wellbeing.

Our newly published research, based on interviews with 23 people aged over 65, reveals a complex relationship with technology: one that can support independence, but also create new sources of stress and exclusion.

A double-edged sword

The experiences of those we interviewed varied widely. Some used technology very little – perhaps just for texts or phone calls – while others relied upon it heavily for daily chores and work. One study participant spoke enthusiastically about using an AI assistant to support her creative writing.

But regardless of how tech-savvy they were, all felt that keeping up with digital change was a never-ending but necessary challenge. This was especially apparent for those who used tech during their working years but found fewer resources available to upskill in retirement.

Another common theme was feeling targeted by scammers due to their age. For people living on a single income or pension, the financial risk of falling victim to a scam could be devastating and put them off going online.

Broadly, we found technology to be a double-edged sword for older people. For those who felt digitally included, it helped strengthen relationships through sharing photos and videos with family overseas and provided useful access to health information.

For those who felt shut out, technology became a source of distress, frustration and feelings of incompetence. They described struggling with online pension applications or having to relearn familiar software after unexpected updates completely changed the interface.

Some felt the accessibility features built into everyday digital devices were inadequate for their physical needs, causing them to abandon tasks because of eye strain or frustration.

Others felt digital technologies were not culturally responsive, reflecting a predominantly Western worldview. Common errors, such as the mispronunciation of te reo Māori names, could deepen feelings of exclusion and cultural invalidation.

Ageism and equity

Nearly all participants felt digital technologies were not designed with older people in mind, believing they were not viewed as a priority market by mainstream technology companies.

Yet many still blamed themselves for struggling to keep up. Some also described dismissive or impatient responses when seeking help, reinforcing feelings of frustration and inadequacy.

This may suggest a problem of digital ageism: the assumption that older people use technology less because they are unable or unwilling to engage with it.

In reality, meaningful digital participation depends on much more than willingness. It requires people to have the motivation, skills, confidence, access, trust and support needed to engage safely and effectively.

In this context, the challenge is not about age but equity. Fortunately, many organisations and individuals across Aotearoa New Zealand are working diligently on this issue, from advocacy groups to library-based digital skills programmes.

Some local companies have introduced equity products, such as age-friendly digital tablets and lower-cost mobile plans for pensioners. These efforts are essential, but more is needed.

More recent interviews with people working in the field suggest a need to dispel the myth that digital exclusion will disappear as older people increasingly become “digital natives”.

Instead, digital inclusion should be viewed as a fundamental right rather than a luxury in the hands of for-profit companies. This will require targeted policy, increased collaboration across sectors, and active involvement of older people as equal partners in digital design, testing and decision-making.

New Zealanders cannot benefit from even the most well-intended developments, such as telehealth services, if even one aspect of digital inclusion is lacking.

Without deliberate action, the shift to digital services risks widening the very inequities it is intended to reduce.

The author acknowledges the contributions of Rosie Dobson, Cinnamon Lindsay Latimer, Judith McCool, Robyn Whittaker and Vili Nosa to this research.

Melanie Stowell receives a doctoral scholarship from the University of Auckland and support from the Centre for Co-created Ageing Research.

An election year budget is a government’s pitch for reelection. For opposition parties, it’s a chance to make their case for change.

Unfortunately for Finance Minister Nicola Willis, her National Party can’t campaign on two of its three big fiscal policy promises from the previous election: to achieve a surplus, reduce debt and cut spending on bureaucracy.

With surplus forecasts moved out by years and government debt having risen, that only leaves the bureaucracy as a viable target.

Willis took the initiative last week with a pre-budget speech in Auckland where she announced three major goals based on National’s 2023 pledge to “reduce spending on bureaucracy”:

• cut the number of public service agencies through amalgamations
• embed AI into all public entities
• return core public servant numbers to a historic norm of 1% of the population.

That would mean, by July 2029, 8,700 fewer public service employees than in December 2025. Willis claims that wouldn’t affect wider state sector employees such as teachers, nurses, doctors or police.

Speaking to Auckland business owners and managers, her message was clear: Wellington is getting serious about value for taxpayers’ money.

Using figures from the Public Service Commission, Willis pointed out that public servants had, since 1993, been around 1% of the population, but grew to 1.2% under the previous Labour government.

Bureaucrats are always a soft political target for the right, and Willis’ taxpaying business audience was apparently receptive to her message.

She chose a sharp wedge issue, however, forcing Labour and the Greens to react by defending public sector employees and attacking “austerity” policies.

Moreover, the economy has been hit by an unexpected energy crisis because of the Middle East situation.

In December, Westpac was forecasting 3.0% growth in 2026 and a decline in the unemployment rate. By this month, they’d revised that to 1.5% growth and a rise in unemployment, none of which is good for a government’s budget or its electoral prospects.

National’s fiscal challenge

Willis’ pre-budget speech was getting in ahead of any bad news she may deliver on budget day. Before the 2023 election, the National Party had offered voters a fiscal plan to “deliver the turnaround the government’s books need”, pledging to:

• achieve a surplus in 2026/27
• reduce government debt
• reduce spending on bureaucracy.

Willis has refreshed that third goal, but what about the other two?

Rather than return to surplus in 2026/27 as promised, the Treasury’s December 2025 update shifted the goalpost to 2029/30. So National faces November’s election still in deficit, and the war in Iran has only made things worse.

Accordingly, government debt has risen in the past three years. The Treasury forecast net core Crown debt to rise and peak at 46.9% of GDP in 2027/28, then decline to 46.1% by 2030.

If the Superannuation Fund is included, as economist Susan St John recommends, the net debt-to-GDP figures are much lower, but they’ve still risen since 2023.

Officially, the Superannuation Fund is excluded from the calculation of net debt because it’s not available for current expenditure, and is invested in growth assets and hence volatile.

By National’s own standards, though, the government has failed to deliver on some key fiscal policies in its first term. In November, voters will determine whether it’s to be its last.

The government’s opponents can argue National’s goals were wrong to begin with.

The assumption the government is somehow “broke” and has to stop borrowing and cut spending can be challenged. But there is no political consensus about what would be a fiscally prudent “ceiling” above which public debt shouldn’t rise.

The Treasury’s “recommended prudent limit for net core Crown debt” is 50% of GDP. Other countries have gone much higher. But New Zealand is a small, almost irrelevant economy in the eyes of international investors and credit-rating agencies, so cross-country comparisons may not be helpful.

Debt and doubt

In the 1990s and 2000s, both National and Labour governments reduced net core Crown debt, starting from a level higher than at present, down to below 10%. After the global financial crisis hit in 2008, this allowed the next National government to run deficits for a few years while the economy recovered.

Willis says “the interest bill on our debt has soared to about $9 billion a year”, or about 6% of expenses. That’s a long way from being broke or unable to service loans, let alone default.

But there has to be a prudent limit to borrowing, especially for a small economy vulnerable to economic shocks. No government wants to turn their country into one of history’s sovereign debt defaulters. The consequences of that are catastrophic.

Government debt may sound boring, but it’s a vital political question for this budget and for the coming election.

The Green, Labour and NZ First parties are promising public investment funds, and they should advise voters how much they’d need to borrow overall. All taxpayers help repay the debts, after all, so they should be able to weigh borrowing up against the benefits of proposed investments.

Get ready for the usual political bunfight on budget day. But think critically about where the government – and its opponents – might lead the country.

Grant Duncan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

With the lid now lifted on Budget 2026, many small and medium New Zealand businesses will be poring over the detail to see what it has in store for them.

Many may come away disappointed. With the government having been upfront about its spending constraints, this budget was never likely to deliver a large new package for small firms.

Instead, the budget delivers a mix of smaller compliance changes, infrastructure spending and energy transition support. It also includes funding for advisory services, digital systems, early-stage capital initiatives and small-business capability programmes, alongside changes to research and development support.

It might be asked whether this mix of small initiatives adds up to anything that will lift productivity. But aside from offering direct support, budgets can also act as useful signals from government.

On this test, this budget appears strongest on encouraging restraint and resilience in a difficult economic environment, even if it is less clear how ordinary small and medium firms are expected to become more productive.

That is important because New Zealand’s productivity problem will not be solved by large firms, infrastructure projects or high-growth startups alone. It also depends on whether thousands of everyday businesses can lift capability, adopt technology and improve margins.

There is an important distinction here. Business support helps firms navigate rules or cope with pressure. Productivity policy helps firms change how they create value. If we look closely, there are measures in the budget to assist in both areas.

The hidden small-business budget

Several budget initiatives are relevant to small firms.

Simplified fringe benefit tax rules for private motor vehicle use will be welcomed by owner managers, trades businesses and service firms. Removing detailed logbook requirements may not sound transformational, but compliance time is time taken away from customers, staff, sales and cash flow.

The $1.2 billion gas transition loan guarantee scheme may help some energy-intensive firms shift to alternative energy sources. Infrastructure spending, trades training, advisory services and digital tools also have practical value.

But these are mainly support measures. They may help firms cope, navigate or adjust. The harder test is whether they help small firms become more productive.

Some of the most interesting measures are less glamorous.

Customer and product data sharing is one example. The budget documents include support for an economy-wide framework to enable more secure data sharing between businesses, with open banking as an early focus.

For smaller firms, access to finance is shaped by information. A viable business may have loyal customers and solid cash flow but still struggle to demonstrate its risk profile to lenders. Better data sharing might make lending, switching providers and cash flow management easier.

Electronic invoicing, or eInvoicing, is another example. For a small firm, a late invoice can mean drawing down an overdraft, delaying a supplier payment or chasing accounts after hours. While eInvoicing will not solve late payment by itself, combined with stronger payment discipline it can reduce errors, speed processing, and improve cash flow visibility.

Procurement is another overlooked lever, although the budget is less explicit here. The documents include funding for procurement leadership and improving the experience of businesses interacting with government.

For an innovative small firm, a government contract can provide revenue, credibility and a first reference customer. The budget does not present procurement as an innovation strategy, but that is the opportunity.

If New Zealand wants more innovative small firms, government can buy innovation as well as fund it.

Startup policy is not small-business policy

Budget 2026 also includes support across the wider business ecosystem, including startups and early-stage capital.

New Zealand needs ambitious startups and deeper early-stage capital markets.

But startup policy is not the same as small-business policy. Most small and medium businesses are not seeking seed capital or pitching venture investors. They are established firms trying to manage costs, retain staff, respond to weak demand, adopt technology, improve systems and lift margins.

The Research and Development Tax Incentive changes show the same distinction. In-year payments and greater discretion around late filings may improve cash flow and administrative certainty for eligible businesses actively engaged in research and development. But this is not a broad measure for most small businesses.

The package also reduces the cap on eligible expenditure for non-administrative internal software development from $25 million to $3 million a year. The government says this will better target support toward activities that generate wider spillover benefits.

But some internal software development is central to innovation and productivity. At a time when firms need more sophisticated digital tools, narrowing support for this kind of software development sends a mixed signal.

Building blocks, but no blueprint

There are things in the Budget for small firms. The issue is whether the measures add up to a credible blueprint for lifting productivity.

A small business under pressure does not experience government policy as a set of discrete measures. It experiences the cumulative effect. Does it become easier to access finance, adopt technology, reach customers, draw on expertise and meet compliance requirements without sacrificing productive time?

Business understands fiscal constraints, but still looks to government for signals of vision and coherence.

That is the missed opportunity. In a constrained fiscal environment, the government did not need a grand small-business package. It needed a clearer growth story for the firms that make up most of New Zealand’s business economy.

Rod McNaughton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

In August 2006, at the general assembly of the International Astronomical Union in Prague, astronomers voted on a new definition of a planet, and Pluto was demoted.

Pluto didn’t change, only its definition.

Now New Zealand’s parliament is preparing to vote on the legal definition of “man” and “woman”. If scientists couldn’t end the controversy over what counts as a planet, why should we expect politicians to define who counts as a woman or man?

There is something strange about deciding what something, or who somebody, is by counting votes. The result was awkward enough when scientists were voting in a domain where they knew what they were talking about.

The planet vote didn’t settle the debate at the time, nor nearly two decades later.

And now we want to do the same with humans?

The Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill was introduced by New Zealand First MP Jenny Marcroft and passed its first reading on May 20. It asks parliament to define woman in law as “an adult human biological female” and man as “an adult human biological male”.

The bill assumes there is a settled biological test for whether a person is female or male – one the law can simply borrow and apply. Marcroft thus frames the change as restoring “biological reality” to the law.

But there isn’t a single biological test, and the bill does not specify one. Instead, biology is messier, more qualified and less politically useful.

When chromosomes don’t match what you see

The test that determines what gets written on a birth certificate is a visual inspection of newborn genitals. This works for most births but not all.

It misses out on the variations where external anatomy appears typical for one sex but internal organs don’t match, and it breaks down when what’s visible doesn’t clearly fit either category.

Chromosomes can be used as a more objective test. But while having a Y chromosome makes you male most of the time, there are too many exceptions and also diversity across species.

The production of gametes (sperm and eggs) offers a more stable definition, but it doesn’t substantiate the definition expected in the bill, because boys and older people don’t produce gametes. Nor do people with conditions where they either don’t produce gametes at all or their gametes don’t match the visual test.

Take gametes seriously for a moment. Does “biological female” mean producing eggs? If it does, then women past menopause are not female under the definition – yet they are a large part of the constituency the bill claims to defend.

The bill either excludes them, or it relies on a looser notion, something like a developmental pathway toward egg production or a phenotype historically associated with female reproductive function. At that point the word “biological” is no longer doing the crisp, settling work the bill needs it to do.

Promising clarity, delivering the opposite

The age clause produces a parallel problem at the other end of life.

A girl, on the bill’s definition, is not a woman. Existing legislation that uses “women” to cover both adults and children breaks and would have to be patched with a new vocabulary of “female children” or something else.

Attorney-General Chris Bishop flagged this, warning of “discrimination on the basis of age”.

Labour opposition MP Camila Belich gave the clearest example. New Zealand’s abortion law refers to “women” and where a statute does not specify an age of maturity, the default is 20. Under the bill as drafted, women under 20 may lose access to abortion.

The bill promises clarity but generates a definitional mess. So why pass it? ACT’s Karen Chhour said the bill was not about science, but about whether ordinary people are “allowed to trust their own eyes, speak honestly”.

Take her at her word. The bill isn’t resting on biology but on the social intuition that everyone knows what a woman or a man is and on the wish to have that intuition ratified somewhere durable.

This is a piece of legislation that treats a complex cluster of biological traits as if it were one settled thing, and ties legal meaning to the pretence.

Which brings us back to Pluto. Its reclassification was harmless because Pluto doesn’t care. It will continue its gravitational dance with other celestial bodies regardless of humans calling it a planet or not.

But women and men aren’t planets. The bill’s reclassification tells people whose lives will be deeply affected by the definition that the question has been resolved.

It hasn’t. And it cannot be resolved by a vote in parliament any more than the nature of Pluto could be resolved by a vote at a scientific conference.

If you have to legislate the meaning of woman and man, you have already admitted the word was doing more than describing biology.

Patrick Girard does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.