Back
Press Release
2025年11月6日星期四
Kiwis deserve smarter health spending, not Labour’s untargeted freebees
Labour’s policy of free cervical screening repeats the error of promising universal entitlements without considering whether they are the best use of limited health funding, says ACT Health spokesperson Todd Stephenson.
Labour’s policy of free cervical screening repeats the error of promising universal entitlements without considering whether they are the best use of limited health funding, says ACT Health spokesperson Todd Stephenson.
“Labour has costed its newest policy at $21.6 million in the first year, funded from existing health baselines. That’s money that can no longer be targeted at potentially more critical women's health needs – whether that's breast screening, human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, or even getting women who have been underserved by the health system connected to services.
“Cervical screening is important. The question is not whether screening has value, but whether making it universally free for every woman aged 25 to 69 is the most effective way to spend precious health dollars.
“Labour need to learn to spend smarter, not harder. They made the same mistake with their free-GP-visit policy. If you don't increase the number of doctors, all you do is crowd waiting rooms. People who urgently need care end up waiting longer.
“New Zealanders deserve a health system that delivers the best outcomes their taxes can buy.
“ACT in Government is spending smarter, fixing what matters, and ensuring every dollar goes to where it can do the most good. We backed expanded – but still targeted – eligibility for breast screening because the data shows this will save lives.
“We have also found savings across government making new investments in health possible, such as a record increase in funding for new medicines through the Pharmac model. Pharmac is independent from politicians, it funds medicines based on what will do the maximum good for the minimum dollars. If we funded drugs the way Labour wants to fund cancer screening, we’d be saving far fewer lives.”


