Public Land, Private Pressure; The Great Land Grab is On

Written by Scott Clements

Recent announcements by both the Australian Government and the Queensland Government point to a common theme. Large tracts of publicly owned land are being identified for sale or redevelopment in response to shifting strategic, economic, and social pressures.

In one case, the Commonwealth has identified 67 Defence sites for potential sale following an independent audit of the Defence estate. In another, the Queensland Government has begun selling state-owned land to developers to accelerate housing supply, starting with a six-hectare site on Brisbane’s northside earmarked for 400 homes.

While the policy drivers are different, the underlying story is remarkably similar.

Land sales are rarely the strategy. More often, they are the consequence of decisions that were deferred for too long.

The cost of holding land without a plan

The Defence estate audit highlights the scale of the issue. Defence is one of the largest landholders in the country, managing an estate covering approximately three million hectares.

The independent review found that large parts of this estate were no longer required for operational purposes and that many facilities had deteriorated beyond the point of economic repair. Ten of the sites identified for disposal were vacant, and a further 14 were used only occasionally.

As a result, the government agreed to fully or partially dispose of 67 of the 68 sites identified.

The report estimates that sales revenue from estate consolidation could reach approximately $3 billion, with ongoing maintenance savings of up to $100 million per year. At the same time, Defence is expected to incur up to $1.2 billion in costs associated with remediation, staff relocation and site preparation.

The alternative was clear. Retaining large metropolitan Defence properties would require an estimated $3 billion in remediation and capital works over the next decade, with costs increasing the longer works were deferred.

Maintaining the status quo was not an option.

This pattern is not unique to Defence. Across governments, land is often retained well after its original purpose has changed, while investment decisions are delayed. Over time, the cost of doing nothing compounds quietly until decisive action becomes unavoidable.

Activation without alignment creates new risks

At the other end of the spectrum, the Queensland Government’s land sales program highlights a different but related challenge.

The state has begun unlocking under-utilised public land for private development, starting with a six-hectare former Energex depot at Banyo to deliver 400 new homes. Further sites across Queensland are expected to follow, with developers also able to register interest in land not yet formally earmarked for sale.

The stated objective is land activation and housing supply, rather than maximising sale price.

However, local concerns raised in response to the first site are instructive. Residents have questioned whether existing roads, stormwater, and sewer infrastructure can support the proposed density. Housing advocates have raised concerns about whether the program will deliver meaningful social and affordable housing outcomes.

These issues are not unusual. When land is activated without early and coordinated infrastructure planning, pressure shifts downstream. Infrastructure capacity, rather than land availability, becomes the limiting factor.

Again, this is rarely the result of a single decision. It reflects the absence of early alignment between land use, infrastructure capability, and long-term planning.

Timing matters more than intent

From an engineering and infrastructure perspective, the most important variable is not whether land is sold, retained, or redeveloped. It is when the decision is made.

Early decisions preserve options. Late decisions remove them.

The Defence estate review demonstrates what happens when assets are held too long without reassessment. The Queensland land sales illustrate the risks when land is activated faster than supporting infrastructure can be planned and delivered.

In both cases, the visible decision to sell land is only the final step in a much longer chain of deferred or disconnected decisions.

A more deliberate approach

None of this suggests that governments should avoid selling land or activating sites for development. In many cases, doing so is necessary and appropriate.

The lesson is simpler and more practical. Land decisions should be the outcome of an ongoing asset and infrastructure strategy, not the trigger for one.

That means regularly reassessing land against current and future needs, understanding infrastructure condition and capacity early, and integrating land use decisions with infrastructure sequencing and investment.

For engineers, planners, and decision-makers alike, the opportunity lies upstream. The most influential decisions are made quietly and early, long before land sales are announced.

By the time land is put up for sale, the real decisions have usually already been made.