Most New Zealanders willing to pay more tax for healthcare, survey finds
A survey of 1600 New Zealanders has found 62 percent are willing to pay more tax if the money goes towards healthcare funding. The survey also found strong agreement across party lines on the need for tighter regulation of tobacco and unhealthy foods, and more urgent action on cancer prevention, screening and treatment.
The Cancer Society funded the research, which was published as a nine-paper series in the New Zealand Medical Journal. It was carried out by Te Rōpu Rangahau ō te Kāhui Matepukupuku, a collaboration between University of Otago cancer researchers and the Cancer Society. The study's lead director is Professor Louise Signal, a professor of public health at Otago University in Wellington. Signal said the survey used a representative sample of the New Zealand public (RNZ).
Of the 1600 respondents, 1034 (62 percent) supported paying more tax for increased healthcare funding, 458 (29 percent) were opposed, and the remainder did not know. Support for early cancer detection, treatment and care policies was above 90 percent regardless of which party respondents said they intended to vote for. The results showed strong cross-party support for greater investment in cancer care, particularly strong among older New Zealanders.
Signal said researchers were surprised at the extent of cross-party support for the policies they suggested. She said overwhelming majorities of New Zealanders, including significant majorities of coalition partner voters, thought the policies should be reinstated.
The survey found wide-ranging support for bringing back tobacco reforms, taxing sugary drinks, protecting children from alcohol and junk food marketing, stricter alcohol laws, and more action on sun safety. On the question of whether industry should have a say in healthy food environment policy, 1267 respondents (79 percent) were in favour of excluding industry, compared with 292 (17 percent) against.
The survey also found strong support for stand-down periods — a waiting time before outgoing politicians can become lobbyists — and stronger regulations on lobbying in general, particularly in the areas of sugary foods and alcohol.
Rachael Neumann, the Cancer Society's head of advocacy and public affairs, said the survey created a clear mandate for the government to invest more in cancer diagnosis, treatment and care. She said an ageing population and entrenched inequities mean demand for timely, equitable cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment will continue to intensify in the coming decades unless action is taken.
The findings come alongside renewed political activity on tobacco policy. On Tuesday Labour announced that if elected it would reinstate its smokefree generation policy, which was repealed in 2024 by the current government. The policy, when first introduced under the previous Labour government, would have meant people born on or after 1 January 2009 would never be able to purchase tobacco products again. Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall signalled the cut-off date in the reinstated policy would change, but did not say to what.
A separate survey published by Health Coalition Aotearoa in May found New Zealanders support reinstating the very low nicotine cigarette policy, and that more than two-thirds believe the tobacco industry influences government policy (Health Coalition Aotearoa).
The policy backdrop for tobacco and food taxes is well-established in the New Zealand context. The Public Health Communication Centre has noted that New Zealand has used taxes to keep tobacco prices relatively high to reduce the health risk from harmful products (PHCC). A 2015 peer-reviewed study by Blakely and colleagues found ongoing tobacco tax increases deliver sizeable health gains and health sector cost savings and are likely to reduce health inequalities. A 2018 Ministry of Health draft report assessed changes to smoking habits and addiction following tobacco excise tax increases, comparing Māori, Pacific and New Zealand European smokers.
On the food side, a 2026 peer-reviewed study by Davies and colleagues estimated that a 20 percent tax on unhealthy foods could yield the greatest health gains, around seven times those of a 20 percent tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. The World Health Organization defines health taxes as taxes levied on products with a negative public health impact, including tobacco, alcohol and sugar-sweetened beverages.
The OECD's 2026 Economic Survey of New Zealand noted the country's economy had entered the early stages of a cyclical recovery, supported by easing monetary policy, resilient exports and a rebound in tourism, a context that may bear on the fiscal appetite for new health taxes.
The broader context here is that the survey's most striking finding for political observers is less the headline tax-willingness figure than the depth of cross-party agreement on regulatory interventions that the current government has rolled back or declined to pursue. Support above 90 percent for cancer care policies across all intended party votes, and clear majorities among coalition voters for reinstating tobacco reforms, narrows the political room for parties to frame these measures as contentious. The lobbying findings, tying food and alcohol regulation to integrity concerns, push the survey into territory that extends well beyond health policy alone.
Whether that public consensus translates into policy change will depend on how the government and opposition choose to respond to findings that, on the face of it, leave little electoral cover for inaction.
