Opinion: Pulling The Rug Out From Under Students: Why Fees Free Didn't Fail.

Josh Robinson 

Critics of the Fees Free scheme are right about one thing: the policy failed to significantly increase enrolments. But they ignore a crucial fact: the scheme was never intended to end after one year. 

In May, the Government announced plans to scrap the Fees Free scheme, which has allowed eligible tertiary students to complete one year of study without paying tuition fees since 2018. The announcement was met with strong opposition from student associations. In a joint statement, they argued the decision “is likely to entrench existing disparities, with disproportionate impacts for Māori and Pacific learners, disabled learners, students from low-income backgrounds, and first-in-family students.” 

Since then, debate has centred on whether the scheme increased enrolments and whether it represented good value for money. Salient contributor Saad Aamir described the scheme as having “failed to increase access to tertiary study for poorer New Zealanders.” Aamir argued that making the first year free did not improve university participation and was inequitable. These claims are supported by a study from the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) which found the Fees Free scheme had no effect on increasing enrolment numbers. This sentiment was echoed by Finance Minister Nicola Willis, who said the scheme “never achieved its goal.”

However, these claims ignore the fact that the policy was designed as the first phase of a universal system, not as a standalone intervention. 

The Sixth Labour Government, under Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, originally planned to extend the scheme from one year of fee-free study in 2018 to two years by 2021, and three years by 2024. That meant many students completing a standard three-year undergraduate degree would have been able to do so without paying tuition fees. The stated objectives of the policy were to increase university participation (especially among under-represented groups), reduce financial barriers to entry, reduce student debt, and support workforce development by enabling more people to gain qualifications. 

Why was the initial rollout spread out over seven years instead of all at once? The Fees Free scheme was a radical policy for its time. National tertiary education enrolment numbers were in steep decline, and tertiary education was more expensive than ever. At full implementation, the scheme would have cost an estimated $1.2 billion per year. Finding the money to fund it all at once, rather than  gradually, would have been a challenging and controversial move for then Finance Minister Grant Robertson. 

Then came Covid-19. 

Due to the fiscal challenges created by the pandemic, the Fees Free extension was paused and never revisited. 

Participation in tertiary education, especially among those in low-socioeconomic backgrounds, has remained an issue ever since. Yet low participation among low-income students continues to be treated as an acceptable outcome. 

The scheme's $350 million-a-year price tag has also been central to the debate— and that is before considering the cost of full implementation. So, was it really worth the money? The social and economic benefits of tertiary education are difficult to quantify. 

Research consistently shows tertiary education produces strong economic and social returns. Bachelor’s graduates earn significantly more over their lifetimes than those who enter the workforce directly after school, while higher qualification levels are associated with better health outcomes, civic engagement, and overall well-being. Tertiary education is not simply a private investment; it is a social good that benefits the wider country. These benefits can also save the government money by reducing pressure on other areas, including the health and justice systems.

The evidence is clear: New Zealand will not become richer by making tertiary education accessible only to those who can already afford it. 

New Zealand First previously proposed a counteroffer: for every year a student stayed in New Zealand and worked after finishing their studies, one year would be deducted from their student debt. However, this policy still subscribes to the ideology of privatising a social good. In this model, the Government would use debt to pressure young people to stay in the country, rather than giving them an attractive reason to do so. It is also worth noting that NZ First leader Winston Peters attended university during the academic bursary era—from 1962 to 1992—when many students were effectively paid to study. 

This highlights another issue. In New Zealand, we criticise companies such as Afterpay and other “buy now, pay later” models for their often predatory approach to private debt. Yet when it comes to national student debt, which has reached $11.6 billion, we treat it as normal. 

Similarly, while fully subsidised primary and secondary school education is accepted  as standard, tertiary education is treated as a luxury add-on to our education system. If the government decided to take away subsidies for a year of primary or secondary school, there would be civil unrest. 

To find a solution, we need only look overseas, where free tertiary education models are already working. Many countries of a similar economic scale to New Zealand, such as Finland, maintain heavily subsidised tertiary systems while sustaining high participation rates and skilled workforces.

Fees Free was not rejected by voters, nor was it proven unworkable in practice. It was interrupted before it could achieve what it was designed to do. That distinction matters. It means the debate we are having today is not about whether free tertiary education failed, but whether New Zealand ever allowed it to succeed. 

Policies that are interrupted mid-design are not neutral casualties of circumstance. They are political choices about what kinds of futures are worth abandoning. 

The real question is whether students will accept that abandonment, or fight to finish the job.