Greens demand 10% public housing quota but can’t see the obvious win
A 10% public housing quota sounds like equity — but in Canberra's supply crisis, mandatory pre-construction costs have a way of making housing more expensive, not less.
The ACT Greens want to fix a housing shortage by making it harder to build houses. That is the practical consequence of ACT Greens leader Jo Clay's motion before the Legislative Assembly, which would require developers at the Thoroughbred Park precinct - one of Canberra's biggest urban redevelopments in a generation, slated for 6,200 homes - to hand over 10 per cent of all dwellings as rent-fixed public housing before a single property can be sold. The stated intention is to help the Canberrans stuck on the public housing waitlist. The structural effect is to add a mandatory cost burden to a project that has not yet broken ground, in a market that already cannot build enough.
The instinct is right; the instrument is wrong
The Greens' argument is not dishonest. There are 3,600 people on a waitlist. Thoroughbred Park will house up to 16,400 people once complete. It is not unreasonable to ask that a suburb of that scale include some public housing rather than tacking it on later as an afterthought. The instinct that community infrastructure, including affordable housing, should be planned into precincts from the beginning rather than negotiated away when developers want their margins protected is actually correct.
But a 10 per cent mandatory quota, applied uniformly before any development is viable, is a different instrument than good planning. It is a cost impost. And cost impostes on construction in a housing crisis do not get absorbed quietly. They get passed on in one of three ways: developers price the subsidy into the remaining market-rate homes, making those homes less affordable; they walk away from marginal projects that no longer pencil out; or they renegotiate the terms until the public housing component shrinks anyway. Anyone who has watched the history of mandatory inclusionary zoning schemes in other Australian jurisdictions will recognise all three outcomes.
A quota is a tax on building, and Canberra cannot afford one
The supply argument here is not ideological, it is arithmetic. Canberra's vacancy rate sits near historic lows. The ACT has consistently failed to build enough dwellings to keep pace with population growth. In that environment, every home that does not get built because a project stalled is a home someone does not live in, and that scarcity pushes rents and prices up for everyone. As we've noted before when examining why demand-side transfers tend to get absorbed into higher rents, the fundamental constraint is supply. Fix the supply and the affordability picture improves across the entire market, not just for the fraction of households lucky enough to secure a subsidised tenancy.
The benefits are diffuse and unsexy and do not photograph well at a press conference, but they are real.
That is the win the Greens are not seeing. Thoroughbred Park, built at full density and at pace, adds 6,200 homes to Canberra's stock. That alone exerts downward pressure on rents and prices, benefiting people nowhere near the public housing waitlist. It benefits the person who was priced out of their suburb. It benefits the nurse who cannot afford to live near the hospital she works in. The benefits are diffuse and unsexy and do not photograph well at a press conference, but they are real.
The ACT government's own housing scandal deserves a motion too
None of this means public housing investment is wrong. The ACT government has its own problems here, including, as we've reported, hundreds of vacant public housing properties sitting empty due to maintenance backlogs while nearly 3,650 approved applicants wait years for a home. That is a scandal deserving its own motion. The Greens are right that people on the waitlist need homes. They are wrong about where the lever is.
The legitimate version of Jo Clay's concern is a planning policy that sets aside land, reserves sites, and provides a framework for future public housing delivery as the precinct matures. That is different from a mandatory pre-construction quota that squeezes the development margin before a single foundation is poured. One is sensible urban planning. The other is a tax on building, dressed in the language of equity.
Canberra's housing problem is a shortage. The solution is more homes. Any policy whose primary effect is to slow the rate at which new homes are built makes that shortage worse, regardless of what the press release says it will do.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Thoroughbred Park development in Canberra?
Thoroughbred Park is one of Canberra's largest urban redevelopments in a generation, planned to deliver 6,200 homes and house up to 16,400 people. The ACT Greens have moved in the Legislative Assembly to require developers to hand over 10 per cent of all dwellings as rent-fixed public housing before any properties can be sold.
Why do mandatory public housing quotas make housing less affordable?
Mandatory pre-construction quotas add a cost to development that does not disappear — it gets passed on. Developers either price the subsidy into remaining market-rate homes, abandon projects that no longer stack up financially, or renegotiate until the affordable housing component shrinks. All three outcomes are documented in mandatory inclusionary zoning schemes across Australian jurisdictions.
How many people are on Canberra's public housing waitlist?
Approximately 3,600 Canberrans are on the public housing waitlist. Separately, nearly 3,650 approved applicants are already waiting years for a home while hundreds of existing public housing properties sit vacant due to maintenance backlogs — a parallel failure that receives far less political attention.
Is there a better way to include public housing in new developments than a mandatory quota?
A planning framework that sets aside land and reserves sites for future public housing delivery does the same work without hitting developer viability at the point of investment. Land reservation costs government nothing upfront and does not add to the pre-construction cost burden that causes marginal projects to stall or be abandoned.
Does building more private housing actually help people who can't afford rent?
Yes. Adding supply to a constrained market exerts downward pressure on rents and prices across the whole market, not just for households in subsidised tenancies. In a city like Canberra, where vacancy rates are near historic lows and construction has failed to keep pace with population growth, every additional dwelling built reduces scarcity for everyone.