So, after failing miserably with Kiwibuild, the Government thinks the solution is to let people squeeze more places onto single sections.

Which is why it wants councils around the country to start letting people build three, three-storey properties on one site.

Which is something the last Christchurch City Council - before the recent local body elections - flipped the bird at, and told the Government it would not be approving and implementing the new housing density rules.

Not surprisingly, the Government hasn’t taken “no” for an answer and has brought in what it’s calling a “mediator” to work through the issues. But we all know, don’t we, that when a government says it’s working through the issues, it actually means it’s doing what it needs to do to get what it wants.

So we’ve got something of a stand-off. The Government wants people to be able to build three, three-storey properties on a single section and the Christchurch City Council doesn’t. It thinks Christchurch is a special case and needs to be treated like one.

And the mediator - or the enforcer - has been brought in by the Government to bang some heads together and get its way. And we are learning a bit more about the enforcer’s terms of reference.

As part of his “investigation” (as the Government’s calling it), the Enforcer is only being required by the Government to speak to three groups of people: city council staff, city councillors and Ngāi Tahu.

But residents - or, in particular, residents groups, appear to have been left out.

More than 20 residents’ associations wrote to the city council a while back, calling on it to reject the Government’s intensification plan. And, to its credit, the council did just that.

But it appears the Government isn’t quite as interested as the council was in what the residents’ associations have to say because they’re not included in the terms of reference for the investigator or “the enforcer’s” work.

Which I think is wrong. On several fronts. Firstly, because the Council that said “no” to housing intensification just over two months ago isn’t the same council today.

There are six new councillors around the council table following the recent local body elections and we have no idea what these six new councillors think about intensification.

They’re going to be able to tell the Enforcer where they stand, but we will be none the wiser.

Secondly, if it wasn’t for the residents’ associations banding together and lobbying the city council, we possibly wouldn't be in the situation we’re in at the moment because it’s quite possible that the Council wouldn’t have told the Government where to go if it hadn’t had a rev up from residents groups.

And, therefore, it’s only right that these groups have their chance to have some sort of input into the Government’s investigation process.

Tony Simons from the Riccarton Bush-Kilmarnock Residents’ Association is in the news today saying he doesn’t expect the Government’s investigator to consult every resident but thinks at least a group representing residents’ groups should be included. And I couldn’t agree with him more.

The other reason why I think residents need to have input, is that I’m not seeing any evidence of this new open and transparent council we were promised ahead of the local body elections.

Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger is saying he thinks there should be some form of public participation, but he doesn’t want to do widespread consultation.

Let me quote the Mayor: “If you open it up, the next thing you’ve got 300 residents coming forward to you. You would be an old man before you ever got anything finished.”

Well, I’m sorry Phil, you saying there “should be” some form of public consultation isn’t enough of a reassurance for me. Because we’ve seen before, haven’t we, how good the Government is at getting well ahead of itself - even when everyone else thinks it’s still in a consultation phase.

Three Waters is a prime example. Remember former Christchurch mayor Lianne Dalziel being blindsided by the Government pressing on with Three Waters when she thought it was still considering the views of the advisory group she’d been a part of?

And that is exactly what will happen here, if we’re not careful. It’s all very well the mayor saying there “should be” public consultation, but what he needs to be doing is demanding that the Government include it in its terms of reference for its Enforcer.

Because, at the moment, it’s only requiring that council staff, city councillors and Ngāi Tahu be spoken to. There’s a line in the terms of reference about the Enforcer talking to other stakeholders - if relevant. Which is just weasel words, isn’t it?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.