Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has declared Labour's fees-free university policy a "quite a failure," announcing the coalition government will scrap the scheme despite economic growth and mounting pressure on young New Zealanders already squeezed by housing and living costs.The program, which covered students' final year of tertiary study, is being eliminated as part of what Finance Minister Nicola Willis described as coalition budget negotiations. Students completing study in 2026 will still be eligible, but after that, it's gone.Luxon's justification was blunt: "The fees programme is not working... it would be absolute insanity to support something that isn't meeting its objectives." According to the Prime Minister, economic growth—not education subsidies—is what young people need, and redirecting funds toward trades training would be more beneficial.It's a familiar argument: the policy didn't achieve its goals, therefore it should be scrapped. But here's what Luxon didn't say: New Zealand's economy has grown. Real GDP per capita is up. The country is wealthier than it was when the policy was introduced. The question isn't whether New Zealand can afford education support—it's whether the government chooses to prioritize it.Critics were quick to respond. Aidan Donaghue, president of the Victoria University Students Association, called the decision "disheartening," noting that students "are the first on the chopping block if changes are made to the Budget." Donaghue shared his own story: the first in his family to attend university, the fees-free scheme helped him make the decision to move from Hamilton to Wellington for study.That's the reality the aggregate statistics miss. For individual students, especially those from lower-income families, the fees-free year isn't just a nice perk—it's the difference between taking on massive debt and making university financially viable. Remove that support, and you're not just cutting a program. You're cutting off pathways.Donaghue also warned that many graduates are already considering relocating to due to employment challenges. That's the broader context 's economic growth argument ignores: if young, educated New Zealanders leave for better opportunities across the Tasman, GDP growth means very little.And they are leaving. Brain drain has been a persistent issue for , particularly among young professionals who find better wages, more affordable housing, and stronger career prospects in . Eliminating education support while housing costs remain sky-high and wages stagnate isn't exactly a compelling reason to stay.The government's decision also fits into a broader pattern: austerity measures targeting programs that benefit young people, despite overall economic growth. The first home buyer grant? Gone. Fees-free tertiary education? Gone. Meanwhile, superannuation remains untouchable, and tax settings continue to favor existing homeowners.It's a political economy that enriches older generations while systematically removing support structures for younger ones. can talk about economic growth all he wants, but if that growth doesn't translate into opportunity for young New Zealanders, what's the point?There's also the question of what the policy was meant to achieve. If the goal was to increase tertiary participation among students who wouldn't otherwise attend, that's one metric. If the goal was to reduce student debt burden, that's another. If the goal was to signal that education is a public good worth investing in, that's a third.'s dismissal of the program as a failure doesn't engage with these questions. It simply declares the policy ineffective and moves on. But education policy isn't like a business investment with a clear ROI. It's about creating opportunities, reducing barriers, and ensuring that financial circumstances don't determine who gets to pursue tertiary education.The coalition's emphasis on trades training isn't necessarily wrong— does need skilled tradespeople. But it's presented as an either/or proposition: either we support university education or we support trades. Why not both? The country is wealthy enough to invest in multiple pathways.Stats NZ data shows the NEET rate—young people not in employment, education, or training—stood at 14.4 percent in March 2026. That's a substantial chunk of young New Zealanders disengaged from both work and education. Cutting support for tertiary education while that figure remains elevated seems counterproductive at best.The international context is also worth considering. Many developed nations subsidize tertiary education far more generously than . Countries like , , and offer free or nearly free university education, viewing it as a public good rather than a private investment. is moving in the opposite direction.There's a cynicism to the government's approach: claim you can't afford programs for young people while the economy grows and older generations continue to benefit from property wealth and superannuation. It's not that can't afford education support—it's that the government has decided not to prioritize it.'s business background shapes his rhetoric—policies should deliver measurable results or be scrapped. But education isn't a business. It's a long-term investment in people and society, with benefits that don't always show up in quarterly reports or budget forecasts.Mate, here's the reality: young New Zealanders are being told they're on their own. Can't afford a house? That's your problem. Student debt crushing you? Shouldn't have gone to university. Can't find work? Should've learned a trade. The fees-free scheme was a small gesture toward recognizing that education shouldn't be a luxury. Scrapping it sends the opposite message.There's a whole generation of New Zealanders watching their government eliminate support systems while being lectured about economic growth they're not experiencing. says the policy didn't meet its objectives. For students like , it did exactly what it was supposed to do: made university accessible. Apparently, that's not objective enough for this government.