Q+A's Jack Tame says the water reform policy has been badly handled and communicated from the start and the government's best hope now is most people aren't that interested in the subject.

From its inception, the government’s Three Waters reforms have neatly divided voters into two camps: those who really care, and those who really don’t.

Politically, it’s been disastrously handled from the start. Minister Nanaia Mahuta – herself trying to juggle both local government and foreign affairs – was dropped by Chris Hipkins seemingly to take the heat out of the issue.

New PM Chris Hipkins hinted as much to The Hui, saying Mahuta had been left “out on her own” by the government to defend the increasingly controversial policy.

It seems scarcely believeable that reforms to future-proof New Zealand’s water assets and reduce the burden on ratepayers could become so divisive, but a mille feuille of strategic missteps have intensified opposition and undermined trust in the government’s stated intentions.

In 2021, a $3.5m taxpayer-funded advertising campaign pitted central government against local councils, which felt the proposals would strip them of billions in assets and remove local controls.

Wed, Mar 15

Thu, Apr 13

6:51

Thu, Apr 13

6:51

Efforts to entrench part of the reforms were slipped through quietly in an amended bill, and only stopped after a constitutional law expert picked up on the extraordinary provision and raised his concerns on Twitter.

Jacinda Ardern was consistently unable to argue why 50-50 mana whenua co-governance on the Three Waters’ Regional Representative Groups was necessary for the delivery of public services on this scale.

Even as late as last week in her exit interview with John Campbell, the former prime minister reflexively argued that co-governance was nothing to fear. But arguing why a change is nothing to fear is not the same as mounting a meaningful argument in favour of it.

The Affordable Water Reform rebrand has come at least 18-months too late, but the question for Labour is whether the it’ll be enough to meaningfully affect October’s election.

So far in his tenure as Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins has proved adept at rebranding. In the eyes of voters, he’s distinguished his government from Jacinda Ardern’s. His policy positions are mostly the same and it’s still a majority Labour government, but Hipkins has conjured a sense of freshness and enjoyed a sustained bump in the polls.

This is a greater test, with fewer potential political upsides.

The Affordable Water Reform will leave voters divided: those who really care, and those who really don’t. It won’t be enough to change the minds of voters who are intensely opposed to the reforms. For them, the Affordable Water Reform is little more than a lipsticked pig.

But the re-brand is probably enough to stem the bleed. The Affordable Water Reform won’t hurt the government any more than Three Waters already did. Voters who didn’t engage with the policy beforehand will feel their eyes glaze over at the first mention of enduring infrastructure and balance sheet separation.

Heading into October, when economic conditions are set to dominate the policy debate, it’s probably the best result Chris Hipkins could hope for.