More than nine out of every ten New Zealanders want the government to spend more on cancer testing, treatment and care, and close to two thirds say they would pay more tax to fund it, according to a national survey published this morning in the New Zealand Medical Journal.
The survey of 1,635 adults sits behind a nine paper series in the journal’s 28 August issue, covering cancer treatment funding, screening, tobacco, alcohol, food, sun protection and industry lobbying. It was run by researchers at the University of Otago and funded by the Cancer Society of New Zealand through Te Rōpū Rangahau ō Te Kāhui Matepukupuku, the Cancer Society Research Collaboration. Fieldwork was carried out in November and December 2025.
The strongest numbers in the whole series are about the health system itself. Researchers put eight cancer funding proposals to respondents, from diagnostic testing to hospice care, travel assistance for treatment, cancer medicines and radiation services. Every one of them drew weighted support of between 91.4 and 94.4 per cent. Funding for cancer testing and diagnostic services topped the list at 94.4 per cent. Help with the cost of travelling to treatment came in at 91.4 per cent. Support was strongest among people aged 50 and over, and the paper on treatment and care reports substantial backing across every voting intention.
Willingness to pay for it was also high. Just over 62 per cent said they would pay additional tax for healthcare funding, and support rose when the money was earmarked for health rather than going into the general pot. Fewer than a third, 29.4 per cent, thought the government was doing enough to support the health workforce.
Public health professor Louise Signal, one of the authors, told RNZ the breadth of the agreement caught the team off guard. “We were surprised at the extent of the cross-party support from many of the policies that we suggested,” she said, adding that “New Zealanders are willing to pay more tax for better health care.”
Prevention policies drew slightly lower but still large majorities. Around 89 per cent supported measures to bring down the cost of healthy food. About 79 per cent wanted the junk food and sugary drink industries kept out of the development of food policy. Roughly 71 per cent agreed with action to reduce alcohol harm, and about 80 per cent supported HPV vaccination policy. The researchers note that at least a third of cancers are considered preventable.
Sun protection produced some of the clearest results, which is not surprising in a country with among the highest melanoma rates in the world. Funding for SunSmart programmes in schools drew 91.5 per cent support and compulsory school sun protection policies 90.4 per cent. Funding a national SunSmart programme sat at 90.1 per cent and making sunscreen more affordable at 89.1 per cent. Regulating sunscreen as a therapeutic product drew 80.7 per cent, and banning commercial sunbed services 72.5 per cent. The skin cancer paper also records that melanoma mortality has fallen since 2015 while survival gaps between Māori and non-Māori patients have not closed.
Tobacco measures, which have been the most argued over of any of these policies in recent years, were backed by between 70 and 85 per cent of respondents across nine questions. Cutting the nicotine content of cigarettes drew 84.2 per cent support. A smokefree generation policy drew 78.1 per cent, restricting where tobacco can be sold 77 per cent, and a complete ban on smoked tobacco 70 per cent. The tobacco paper found similar levels across demographic groups and voting intentions, including among supporters of the parties in government.
The authors draw a blunt conclusion from that pattern. Cancer policy is often treated as politically risky on the assumption the public will not wear it. The synthesis paper argues the opposite, stating that “barriers to action appear political rather than societal, underscoring the need for decisive political leadership consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi and public expectations.” The treatment paper puts it more directly, saying the findings “should serve as a call to action for politicians and policymakers to prioritise investment in cancer treatment and care services in Aotearoa New Zealand.”
The scale of the problem is set out in the issue’s editorial by Frank Frizelle, who writes that “cancer remains our leading cause of death”. More than 30,000 New Zealanders were expected to be diagnosed with cancer during 2026, a figure projected to pass 45,000 a year by 2044. Five year survival has improved substantially over the past 25 years, the editorial notes, but the country still lags comparable high income nations. “Research is not an academic luxury added to cancer care. It is how cancer care improves,” Frizelle writes.
Rachael Neumann, head of advocacy and public affairs at the Cancer Society, told RNZ the pressure is only going one way. “Together, an ageing population and entrenched inequities mean the demand for timely, equitable cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment will continue to intensify in the coming decades unless this action is taken,” she said.
There are limits worth knowing about before anyone treats these numbers as a mandate. Respondents were recruited through Dynata, an existing online research panel of about 297,000 New Zealand members, so the researchers could not calculate a conventional response rate and say they cannot fully assess non response bias. Quota sampling was matched to 2023 Census benchmarks for age, gender and ethnicity, with extra recruitment of Māori and Pacific participants so those groups could be analysed properly. Results were then weighted back to population benchmarks, giving an effective weighted sample of 1,161 and a worst case margin of error of 2.9 percentage points. The methods paper sets all of this out.
It is also worth being clear about what a survey question measures. Agreeing in a 15 minute online questionnaire that you would pay more tax for better cancer care is not the same as ticking a box on a tax return. What the series does establish is that on a subject where almost every family has a story, the disagreement people expect to find between voters of different parties largely is not there.
Does any of this match your own experience of the cancer system, or of trying to get a test done in reasonable time? Tell us in the comments below.
This article was written by AI, briefed to report the facts, hopefully without some of the bias people bring to the job 🙂
Leave a Reply