Broken Promise, Lost Lives: Government's Bowel Cancer Screening Pledge 98% Undelivered
Press Release – Bowel Cancer New Zealand
Bowel cancer screening is a $30 test that prevents an $80,000 cancer. The human cost of delay is tragic and the economic case for early detection couldnt be clearer. It is indefensible for more Kiwis to continue losing their lives to this preventable, …
Bowel Cancer New Zealand (NZ) is calling for urgent Government action this Bowel Cancer Awareness Month. It warns that the delay in delivering a promised screening age reduction results in over 350 preventable cancers, and 80 people losing their lives every year.
Despite a 2023 election pledge from Christopher Luxon and the Health Minister to lower the screening age from 60 to 45 to match Australia, just 2% of that commitment has been delivered. More than 900,000 New Zealanders remain without access to the screening that is standard care across the Tasman— a tool proven to detect cancer earlier and save lives.
Bowel Cancer NZ has presented the Government with a clinically backed, affordable proposal to protect one million more New Zealanders by lowering the screening age to 45 for all, and to 35 for Māori and Pasifika, who face higher risk at younger ages. A petition supporting its proposal has been signed by 13,000 New Zealanders and is before Parliament.
Peter Huskinson, Chief Executive of Bowel Cancer NZ says New Zealand has one of the highest rates of bowel cancer in the world. It remains the country's second deadliest cancer, despite the fact 90% of cases can be treated successfully if caught early.
'Sadly 1,200 lives are lost to bowel cancer in New Zealand every year, including 350 under the age of 50. And new research [i] is telling us that early onset bowel cancer is on the rise.'
Huskinson says screening is a simple, cost-effective solution that saves lives, and the Government must act now.
'Bowel cancer screening is a $30 test that prevents an $80,000 cancer. The human cost of delay is tragic – and the economic case for early detection couldn't be clearer. It is indefensible for more Kiwis to continue losing their lives to this preventable, treatable disease.'
To date, the Government has added just 20,000 people to the screening programme – scrapping a fully funded plan to screen 100,000 Māori and Pasifika aged 50–59 and instead extending eligibility to all 58–59-year-olds (120,000 people). This is despite clear evidence that Māori and Pasifika face significantly higher risk at younger ages.
'More than half of all Māori bowel cancers occur before the current screening age of 60 and for those diagnosed, it's often at a later stage when it's less treatable,' says Professor Sue Crengle, Medical Advisor for Bowel Cancer NZ.
'As a result, they have less opportunity to benefit from bowel cancer screening in its current form than other ethnic groups.'
As well as a higher risk of getting Bowel Cancer younger, data shows Māori are 46% more likely to die from bowel cancer than non-Māori, while Pasifika are 60% more likely.
'The system isn't acting early enough and is causing unnecessary suffering and deaths among Māori and Pacific communities – deaths that can be prevented with proper screening at the right age,' says Professor Crengle.
This Bowel Cancer Awareness Month, Bowel Cancer NZ is urging New Zealanders to know the symptoms, demand action, and add their voice to the call for a reduction in the screening age by writing a letter to their local MP. More information on this including MP details and a letter template can be found at https://bowelcancernz.org.nz/what-we-do/advocacy/
Know your symptoms: Bowel cancer symptoms can come and go. Don't wait — see your GP if you experience:
Bleeding from the bottom (rectal bleeding)
Change in bowel habits that come and go over several weeks
Persistent or sporadic abdominal pain
Loss of weight for no obvious reason and/or feel tired and weak (symptoms of anaemia)
Lump or swelling in the abdomen
Bowel cancer is preventable and treatable — but only if it's caught early. If something doesn't feel right, see your doctor.
More information on bowel cancer and the Bowel Cancer New Zealand charity can be found at
Note:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
What it's like living with two autoimmune conditions: ‘I've had to adapt everything'
Exercise enthusiast and working mum Anita Hedges is determined to live life to the full, despite dealing with two autoimmune conditions. Photo / Supplied Online exclusive In What's It Like To… New Zealanders from all walks of life share stories of health & wellbeing. Here, Anita Hedges shares with Paulette Crowley what it's like to live with multiple sclerosis. It was a couple of years ago when I noticed that something didn't feel right
The Spinoff
3 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Ruth Richardson's state honour is a slap in the face for the poor
The architect of 1991's 'mother of all budgets', who was made a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the King's Birthday honours this week, did immense damage to the country's poorest and most vulnerable, writes Max Rashbrooke. In the early 1990s, two Porirua preschoolers burned to death when their state house was set alight by a candle their family had begun using after the power was cut off. They had been forced to this extremity by a National government that, obsessed by 'market forces', had decided to remove their housing subsidy and require them to pay market rents instead. This sharp rise in costs had left them unable to pay their power bill; hence the candle. Labour MP Graham Kelly caused an uproar in parliament when he attributed these deaths to National's policies – but even allowing for imponderable factors, like whether a candle falls over or not, he was in the broadest sense right. Policies that target the poor always have consequences in the end. And no one targeted the poor harder than Ruth Richardson, who on Monday was made a Companion to the New Zealand Order of Merit. Alongside the market-rent reforms, Richardson is most notorious for the 1991 'mother of all budgets', which cut the benefits of some of the poorest and most vulnerable New Zealanders by up to one-quarter. In a move familiar throughout history, she decided that the burden of tackling New Zealand's (admittedly severe) budget deficit was to fall disproportionately on the poor, rather than those better able to bear it. The result was immediate: a doubling of the number of those living in the most extreme poverty – that is, on less than 40% of the typical income – from 4% in 1990 to 8% two years later. Most policies are much slower to show their effects; Richardson is among a select few who can claim to have doubled poverty overnight. The effects of this stark rise, quite apart from the pain and misery inflicted on families, have spread right throughout New Zealand. Food banks used to be virtually unknown in this country; in the 1990s they became commonplace. Unable to afford to heat their homes, or indeed pay the rent, multiple families began living under one roof, enduring the cold or huddling together for warmth. Mould and damp proliferated. Diseases like rheumatic fever, long since eliminated in other developed nations, flourished in these conditions, wrecking childhoods and ending lives prematurely. A sharp uptick in the hospitalisations of children for medical conditions – from 50 per 1,000 to 70 per 1,000 – began in 1992, just after Richardson's budget. While she was not, of course, the sole author of these misfortunes, she undoubtedly wrote much of the script. Child poverty leaves scars that later affluence never really erases. Children born into hardship have, in adulthood, twice the rate of heart conditions of those born into wealth. They also have far lower reading scores and educational results. Quite apart from being devastating in their own right, these deficits create colossal financial costs: the annual bill from child poverty in this country is estimated at anywhere between $12 billion and $21 billion. This is particularly ironic because Richardson's legacy on the right is one of financial rectitude: she is seen, in particular, as the author of the 1994 Fiscal Responsibility Act, which aimed to improve the transparency and long-term management of the government's accounts. But not only is this relatively small beer compared to the appalling damage poverty inflicts on people's lives, the long-term economic costs of increased hardship are an example of massive financial irresponsibility. Not that Richardson has ever been able to acknowledge as much. Interviewed by the academic Andrew Dean a decade ago, she denied her policies had resulted in any wider harm: 'Over time, was there a social cost? No, there was a social benefit.' That, then, is the person the New Zealand state decided to honour this week: someone who not only did immense damage to the country's poorest but is also quite disconnected from the realities of that harm. The puzzle is less – as some commentators suggested – that it took so long for her to be recognised, but rather that she has been recognised at all. Maybe, though, we should not be surprised. Over in the UK, a similar strategy of slashing government budgets and benefit payments took place under the Conservatives between 2010 and 2024. This austerity cut access to the social services on which ordinary people rely, reduced ambulance services, and sparked poverty-related 'deaths of despair'. All up, it is conservatively estimated by researchers to have caused 190,000 preventable deaths. The man most responsible for this social devastation, former chancellor George Osborne, nonetheless occupies a gilded position in British life, having moved smoothly into editing the Evening Standard newspaper and pontificating on global politics. Inflicting misery on the poor is, in short, socially acceptable as long as it is clothed in the classic establishment rhetoric of taking 'difficult' choices, 'balancing' the books and fiscal 'responsibility'. The poor may be, as the Christians say, always with us, but that does not guarantee that their lives will ever be accorded the proper respect.
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
Health Select Committee Report Fails To Address Real Issues In Funeral Debt
Press Release – Funeral Directors Assn of NZ We think putting in place better consumer protection, with a backstop of genuine Government support for the most vulnerable is going to have far more impact on funeral debt than simplifying paperwork. The Funeral Directors Association says calls from advocacy group, Death without Debt, to simplify cremation paperwork is distracting Government from the real issues around funeral debt. The Health Select Committee has now released a report on cremation costs and associated matters, finding the current process and regulations create a barrier for people who want to organise their own funerals. However Chief Executive, Gillian Boyes, notes the Select Committee recognised it is already possible for people to complete the paperwork directly, recommending the Te Hokinga ā Wairua | End of Life Service website includes links on its website. 'We're incredibly frustrated this advocacy group has suggested making paperwork easier to find will somehow fix funeral debt,' says Ms Boyes. 'Completing paperwork is a fraction of the cost of funeral services. What does cost is what people want and need, which is the support in caring for them and their loved one when they're at a moment in life where they often can't think straight and where paperwork is the least of their concerns. That is the service funeral directors provide.' Ms Boyes says the industry's own submission to the Health Select Committee recommended the Government should instead focus on: Price transparency in law for all funeral directors. Currently only Funeral Directors Association members are obligated by their Standards and Code of Ethics to be transparent. An increase in the asset testing limit for pre-paid funerals from $10,000 to $15,000. This would ensure those with the means to pre-plan are setting aside a more realistic amount which avoids future debt. An increase in the Work and Income Funeral Grant. This would better protect those with no money for the essential services funeral directors provide. 'Government has to be realistic that when services are provided privately, there is cost involved. 'We think putting in place better consumer protection, with a backstop of genuine Government support for the most vulnerable is going to have far more impact on funeral debt than simplifying paperwork.'
