National’s solution appeared to be more of a political response to try to capitalise on the backlash to Labour’s plan than a considered look at what was actually needed and what would work.
It scratched all the itches people had objected most loudly to in Labour’s reforms.
Under National’s version, the water assets would stay in councils’ hands and governance.
The words co-governance do not appear.
It was called Local Water Done Well. But it did not say how much doing local water well might cost compared to Labour’s way - and hence how much ratepayers might expect to bear of that burden.
The only comment on the cost was to dispute that it would cost as much as the $185 billion figure Labour had been using to justify its Three Waters plan.
It was vague on how it would be paid for, although it did at least require councils to set out how they would pay it, whether through water charges or debt - and to ring-fence that revenue.
That leaves National very vulnerable to claims its idea will result in steep rates increases or high water bills.
If National hasn’t got the numbers at its disposal, they can be damned sure Labour will soon work out a version for them.
When that happens, National risks being left not only with a credibility problem but offside with ratepayers - who are also voters.
In a bid to get some of the economy of scale that Labour’s grand amalgamation plan purports to offer, National has proposed that where councils are good buddies with their neighbours they might have a chat about joining forces to fund water investments - as Wellington has done with Wellington Water.
It seems to be a hope the councils will all end up delivering the scale of amalgamation needed all on their own - albeit in a more haphazard fashion than Labour’s plans.
That could result in a Jackson Pollock-esque pattern of various councils joining forces while rogues and hold-outs in the middle of the cluster stay out, reluctant to subsidise their neighbours.
It could work in theory: The far from resounding success of Wellington Water isn’t necessarily a death knell for councils doing this.
On that, National has identified the other problem when it comes to councils and water investment: Elected councils preferring to spend money on prettier things than pipes.
It has proposed the water regulator makes sure councils ring fence funds for water - and that they actually spend it on water.
National’s proposal might well please those resistant to Labour’s reforms.
But it is far from a compelling solution.
Neither Labour nor National as yet appear to have worked things out based primarily on the central question behind the need for reforms: The cost.
That was the main driver behind Labour’s regional entities and at least it had the courage to put up controversial reforms aimed at fixing the problem.
However, it went beyond what was necessary, sidelined councils too much, added some ideological flourishes and then got arrogant in refusing to listen to the objections.
It is now back in the workshop as Hipkins tries to work out a more politically palatable option which still delivers the financial savings without the political cost.
That revamp is expected in the next few weeks - so far all that Hipkins has done in that regard is to stop using the words “Three Waters” about the reforms.
Hipkins has indicated he will attempt to address the concerns about the extent local democracy is served in those reforms, as well as the co-governance elements.
If he can indeed achieve that, National’s offering has left it wide open for Labour to regain the high ground on this.
Surely between the two, the right solution is there somewhere.
