Labour’s free tertiary education policy has received some favourable coverage – see Anthony Robins’ Praise for Labour’s tertiary bombshell:

Although there have been predictable howls of outrage from the usual suspects, the media reaction to Labour’s bold tertiary education policy has been generally great.

But it has also been scrutinised and questioned in editorials at the Herald and Otago Daily Times.

NZ Herald: An expensive fix which has little purpose

The Labour Party has made the first delivery on its promise to produce bold new policy in 2016. Free tertiary education is a daring reversal of the thrust of educational and economic policy of the past 30 years.

The proposal is simple, radical and will be popular with tertiary students and their parents, and the parents of intending students, not to mention those who teach in universities, polytechnics and training institutes. It may be enough to give Labour the lift in the polls it sorely needs after so long in Opposition.

It’s purpose is to regain support for Labour. Beyond that?

A universal entitlement to three years’ free tertiary education has overwhelming public appeal. Whether it is in the public interest is another question. The policy is expensive: $2.5 billion when fully implemented.

That is a considerable lump of public spending. As always when something of this magnitude is proposed, we should not look at its merits in isolation. Governments do not have infinite budgets and there is a limit to the taxation an economy can provide and remain healthy.

Labour needs to be asked, is this the most worthwhile use of $2.5 billion? Is it even the most worthy use of funds allocated to education?

More broadly, extensions of paid parental leave, more generous welfare benefits and wage subsidies would have been expected to rank higher in Labour’s priorities.

Doubtless it will say it plans to boost all of these things, and more, but that only underlines questions about free tertiary education. With so many worthy calls on Labour’s compassion, why has it chosen to answer this one?

Another Standard author Tat Loo asked similar questions in So, how would you spend $1.2B per year?

The Herald continues:

Tertiary education has seen spectacular growth over that period, attracting foreign fee-paying students as well as meeting New Zealanders’ needs. Why change the funding system now?

Or to put it another way, what problem is this policy designed to fix? Labour’s leader presents it as an answer to the frequent and unpredictable career changes people will need in the workforce of the future. But this “future” has been present for many years now and there has been no sign the costs of retraining have become a problem.

The economy is strong in large part because public spending is under control. Expensive proposals that waste money purely for political gain could put the country’s prosperity in peril.

Obviously Labour will want some political gain from their policy but will the country gain from the money spent?

The ODT also looks at Free tertiary education.

Labour’s policy of three years’ free tertiary education for all has spiced up politics and created a clear point of difference from National.

It has, in these early days since leader Andrew Little’s announcement last Sunday, received a fair amount of support.

It is being seen as a definite move towards the left in a world where Jeremy Corbyn (Britain) and Bernie Sanders (United States) have gained traction.

It will, nonetheless, appeal to many across the centre of the political spectrum where Labour has lost to Prime Minister John Key’s pragmatism.

It is, in the end, the middle classes who are most likely to take up tertiary education in its various forms, just as they have gained from the costly interest-free student loans.

A middle class, centre voter target.

While the policy is to cover post-school education, including apprenticeships, it is not the poor and disadvantaged who will be the primary beneficiaries.

And that is receiving some critical attention from the left.

Whatever the politics of the matter, is it a good idea?

Overall, will it assist the country and its citizens sufficiently given the cost?

Will it really help New Zealand cope with the challenges of a world where change is accelerating?

Is it the best way to spend $1.2 billion a year, or whatever the final cost will be.

The Herald put the cost at $2.5 billion.

There must also be doubts about the price tag being limited to $1.2billion.

For a start, it is clear extra spending on free fees will have to be matched by extra institutional funding for increased demand.

And also more uptake of education because it is free. It could become a hobby option for retired baby boomers.

It is also true the current system of part-payment – the Government still pays the majority share of most courses – focuses the mind.

Not only are students likely to give more consideration to the value of their courses to them, but it also means more accountability from teachers.

Students paying for studies have proved much less likely to put up with second-rate teaching or second-rate programmes.

Labour have introduced this policy well out from next year’s election. This will give them plenty of time to explain and refine the policy, and to respond to criticisms.

But having committed to an expensive policy already they will have to be careful about what else they offer the voters. Their fiscal credibility can’t afford too many expensive promises.