Chris Hipkins used the first leaders’ debate to confirm that Labour would scrap National’s mandated hour a day of reading, writing and maths, saying he wants to “give schools the discretion” over how the basics are taught. He insisted afterwards that “we still want kids to be learning reading, writing, and maths”, just with more flexibility.
That sounds reasonable until you ask what business actually needs from a school leaver. Creativity and critical thinking are worth having. They are also built on top of literacy and numeracy, not instead of them. A 16-year-old cannot critically evaluate a supplier contract, a safety procedure or a spreadsheet they cannot read.
A position Labour has been building all year
This was not a debate-night improvisation. In April, Labour education spokesperson Ginny Andersen told Newsroom she was “less sure about the mandated hour a day”, arguing it crowds out music, art and PE, and that Labour favours “a less prescribed, or top down approach to education”.
By September the party had settled on pausing further maths and English reform while prioritising areas including socioeconomic deprivation and teaching “critical thinking, creativity, and digital literacy”. The morning after the debate, Andersen told Newstalk ZB that “politicians shouldn’t be deciding how kids learn”. National’s Mark Mitchell shot back that Labour should just “let them learn maths and read for an hour a day”.
On the night, voters were not persuaded by National. The 1News undecided-voter panel backed Hipkins 49% to 24% overall, even as Christopher Luxon labelled him the worst education minister the country has had.
The early numbers are moving the right way
Education Minister Erica Stanford points to Year 6 students meeting curriculum expectations in maths rising from 30% to 36%, and in writing from 33% to 38%, both statistically significant. She also cites the 2021 Royal Society report recommending at least an hour of maths a day for Years 0 to 10.
The Education Review Office’s 2025 evaluation was encouraging. Phonics checks at or above expectation climbed from 36% to 58% across three terms of 2025, and around three-quarters of parents reported better progress. But the same report found only 60% of teachers were delivering the full daily hour of reading and 67% for maths. The mandate has not even been fully implemented, let alone fully tested.
The mountain is still very steep
None of this is a victory lap. The government’s own Target 7 aims for 80% of Year 8 students at expected level by 2030. The 2025 factsheet put the starting baseline at reading 47%, writing 24% and maths 22%. The 2024 national maths assessment found no statistically significant change in average scores at Years 3, 6 and 8 from 2023, with only 22% to 30% reaching benchmark.
In other words, roughly three in four Year 8 students were not where they should be in maths. Those students are now approaching the age where they apply for apprenticeships, retail jobs and trades roles.
Employers already pay for the gap
In 2025, MBIE’s Going for Growth report described a “marked decline” in school achievement since 2000 and noted that basic skills deficiency limits earnings potential and increases welfare reliance. Business sees that in remedial training, slower ramp-up for new hires and turnover when young staff struggle with written instructions or basic calculations.
That cost does not show up in a leaders’ debate. It shows up in a builder rechecking an apprentice’s measurements, or a hospitality owner redoing a stocktake.
The case for leaving it alone
National does not get a free pass. The maths curriculum has been rewritten repeatedly, and in 2024 more than 40 maths educators and researchers signed an open letter questioning why a curriculum ERO had assessed positively was being replaced again. Constant churn makes it almost impossible to know which change is doing the work.
Andersen herself made the strongest argument against Labour’s own position in September: “Constant reform carries a cost”. Newsroom also reported some Labour-voting veteran teachers back the explicit teaching model and fear more upheaval. Scrapping the daily hour after barely two data cycles is exactly the kind of untested reversal she warned about.
Music, art and PE matter. So does flexibility for good teachers. But the default setting for a system where most Year 8 students miss the maths benchmark should be more structured time on the basics, not less. Whoever wins on election day, the business ask is simple. Hold the line long enough to see whether it works, and measure it honestly. Employers need school leavers who can read the question before anyone asks them to think critically about the answer.
Sources
- RNZ: What we learned from the first leaders’ debate (2026-10-06)
- 1News: Leaders debate – Luxon, Hipkins fire up over cost of living, trust, racism (2026-10-07)
- Newstalk ZB: Pollies – Ministers clash over curriculum, education policy (2026-10-07)
- Scoop: Labour to scrap game-changing education policy (2026-10-07)
- Newsroom: Labour vows to reinstate school boards’ Treaty obligations (2026-04-28)
- Newsroom: Labour walks tightrope with education reforms (2026-09-02)
- ERO: A new chapter – How well are the changes to English and maths going? (2025-10-15)
- DPMC: Factsheet – Target 7 – More students at expected curriculum level (2025-06)
- NMSSA: Mathematics 2024 (2024)
- Education Review Office: Report on 2024 maths curriculum (2024)
Join the discussion
Add useful context, ask a good question, or challenge an idea — keep it specific and respectful.