When Lake Burley Griffin was finally filled in 1964, Prime Minister Robert Menzies could not resist a wry smile. Speaking at the lake's inauguration, he recalled how the project had been delayed for decades, not only by Depression‑era austerity and wartime distraction, but by what he called 'passive or active resistance by the golfers and their committee men'.
The Royal Canberra Golf Club occupied much of the Molonglo River flats earmarked for the lake, and its well‑connected members were in no hurry to see their fairways submerged. The lake was part of Walter Burley Griffin's original 1912 design for the capital. But for years, the body of water that now helps define our city was held back by a few well‑connected golfers.
Eventually, reason won out. The golf course moved to Westbourne Woods, bulldozers cut channels, and the capital at last gained its shimmering heart. But the story still resonates, because a similar effort is needed to overcome barriers to build the most basic infrastructure our city needs to call ourselves a 'liveable' place: more homes.
To address the housing supply crisis, all levels of government and industry established the National Housing Accord, which set an ambitious target of 1.2 million new homes over 5 years, including 21,000 in the ACT. The ACT Government has gone further and committed to 30,000 new homes.
This is more than just a target. Governments have recognised that supply doesn't just happen; it must be enabled. That means aligning incentives, clearing blockages and measuring outcomes.
The key blockage has been restrictive zoning which has been shutting out families from living in well‑located areas in our cities. As ACT Planning Minister Chris Steel has publicly stated, 'Townhouses, terraces, walk‑up apartments are effectively prohibited in most residential zones in Canberra.' The ACT Government's draft Missing Middle Housing Reforms aim to change that by promoting 'gentle density' that fits within existing streets while easing the housing squeeze.
Well intentioned, but restrictive planning and environment rules are adding a layered merry go round of process and uncertainty, producing delay and dispute instead of homes. Around the country, local objections - however heartfelt - can veto projects that meet broader goals.
Rules intended to protect 'neighbourhood character' can block infill development even within walking distance of jobs, schools and transport. Some jurisdictions offer abundant opportunities for appeals but not enough opportunities for people to live.
As Commonwealth Housing Minister Clare O'Neil has observed, 'One of the biggest barriers we have is state planning systems, which have a default against building.'
Part of the problem is fragmentation. Planning, infrastructure, heritage assessment, utilities approval and tree preservation are each worthy goals, but insufficient coordination means that these processes can delay new buildings. In some cases, financing dries up, trades move on, and homes stay unbuilt.
Recently, Minister Steel walked me through an extraordinary diagram that his directorate has drawn, mapping out every step of the approval process for new build from start to finish. The aim being to identify unnecessary processes and streamline planning assessments to enable more homes to be built more quickly, without sacrificing building quality.
Canberra is doing better than most cities across Australia with a median time to approve a standard development application of 30 working days. But even in a unitary jurisdiction that doesn't have to deal with local government, a single development can bounce between referral entities half a dozen times before a decision is made.
In councils in NSW, development application assessment timeframes range from 54 to 160 calendar days. This is not surprising when you consider the findings of think tank CEDA, which found that in 1967, the application to build a three‑storey apartment block in Sydney ran to 12 pages; while today, such an application would fill hundreds, even thousands.
These delays are a major reason why Australian builders produce 12 per cent fewer homes, adjusting for quality, than builders did 30 years ago. Builders tell us that it can now take longer to do the paperwork for a new home than it used to take to build the entire home.
The small scale of builders doesn't help. Australia's housing sector depends heavily on small and mid‑sized firms, healthy for competition but brittle when approvals drag. Large developers can absorb a delay more easily than small ones. Their cashflow falters, their crews disperse, and momentum is lost.
If we want more homes, we must make it easier to build them. That doesn't mean cutting corners. It means cutting unnecessary paperwork. One example is the NSW Pattern Book, which features 8 designs from award‑winning architects that can be fast‑tracked through the approval process. The ACT Government has committed to develop its own pre‑approved 'Canberra House' designs harking back to the '400 series' homes that were originally built in Canberra's suburbs in the Menzies era.
Modern methods of construction - such as off‑site manufacturing, modular assembly and engineered timber - can deliver faster, cleaner, better housing. The Commonwealth is supporting states and territories to develop the prefab and modular housing industry, and to create a voluntary national certification process to streamline off‑site approvals.
The Commonwealth also took further action following the recent Economic Reform Roundtable to speed up building approvals and reduce the regulatory burden for builders. Measures like pausing further residential changes to the National Construction Code and streamlining environmental approvals will make a big difference. In the last few months alone, nearly 5,000 homes have been approved under our national environmental laws.
The saga of Lake Burley Griffin reminds us that progress in Canberra has never come easily. In the 1930s and 1950s, the city's greatest feature was postponed by economic conditions, bureaucratic inertia and yes, a few well‑placed golfers protecting their patch. Today, our obstacle is not a bunker or a fairway but a web of overlapping and restricting zoning, planning and environmental rules, risk‑averse processes and appeals by residents groups opposed to change. Each delay may be defensible on its own. Together, they choke a city's growth.
The golfers eventually gave way to the greater good, and Canberra got its beloved lake. If we want the next generation to have somewhere affordable to live, we'll need to show the same resolve. Because a city that once struggled to fill its lake should not struggle to build its homes.
