Shifting priorities: planning property with purpose
It’s one of the most quietly consequential decisions a government department will ever make: where it is physically located. Despite the billions tied up in property portfolios, office strategies still too often fall victim to delayed decisions, incomplete planning and, at times, plain short-termism. While the rent ticks away quietly in the background, the real costs (operational, financial and reputational) can pile up fast.
The real-world roadblocks to strategic property planning
Let’s call it what it is. Planning property outcomes in government is hard. Priorities compete, leadership changes, funding shifts, and operational models evolve. Add in approval layers, whole-of-government frameworks, and the occasional dose of “we’ll deal with that later” and you have a perfect recipe for poor planning.
Sometimes it is not even poor planning. It is no planning at all. Procurement processes can begin before internal needs are properly understood or articulated. Worse still, the decision to even start planning gets pushed back so many times that by the time action finally happens, the market has shifted, options have narrowed and urgency has taken over strategy.
The knock-on effect: tenure, delivery, and disruption
Poor planning is not just about a few late nights pulling briefing notes together. It can mean missing the most suitable site, being locked into weak lease terms, or creating an occupancy gap that is both operationally disruptive and reputationally damaging.
Even when relocation is still possible, lack of planning often pushes departments into the market with unclear requirements, unrealistic expectations or, worse, at the wrong point in the cycle. By the time they are ready, the best buildings are gone, costs have shifted and negotiations begin from the back foot.
Then there is the delivery challenge. New offices are not just about floorspace. They require change management, ICT transition, security integration, cultural buy-in and coordination across multiple business units. Trying to achieve all of that with a compressed timeline and a tired project team almost guarantees compromise. The result is not just internal frustration. It is wasted resources, reduced value for taxpayers and, at times, a real impact on service delivery.
Financial impacts and market timing
This is where the impact really starts to bite. Poor planning can mean unnecessary holdovers, costly short-term leases, inflated fitout costs or lease terms that no longer reflect market reality. When the market is falling you risk paying above the odds. When it is rising you miss the chance to lock in savings.
Incentive structures, particularly in Gen 2 and Gen 3 assets, can swing sharply in a matter of months. Recent PCA data shows average incentives in some capitals moving more than five per cent quickly, which sounds modest until you scale it. Across 10,000 square metres it equates to millions of dollars. Layer on the cost of bespoke fitouts, technology integration and potential relocation delays and suddenly you have a budget black hole that no Chief Financial Officer wants to defend in Senate Estimates.
The good news: it’s never too late (well, almost never)
Even if a project doesn’t begin smoothly, a well-structured commercial strategy can turn risks into opportunities. The same market shifts that create challenges, such as changing incentives, rising fitout costs or tighter rental cycles, can also be managed to deliver stronger outcomes when approached with the right expertise. Smart advisors (g’day) know how to reset timelines, refine briefs and navigate complexity to bring momentum back into play.
This might involve combining short-term extensions with longer-term site delivery, renegotiating in-situ on improved terms, or drawing on data and performance benchmarks to support a change in direction. For government, the focus is always twofold: meeting immediate operational requirements while also aligning with broader government priorities. ESG, accessibility, commercial viability, cost efficiency and security compliance can all be achieved together. With clear strategy and careful negotiation, the pressures of the market become a platform for better results rather than a barrier.
The importance of market process and site selection
Too often, decisions get rushed because planning wasn’t done properly. A market process that genuinely tests supply and gives departments access to the best available product isn’t a ‘nice to have’. It’s essential.
Sometimes, the right move is to stay put. But that needs to be proven, not assumed. Extending in place can feel like a compromise, yet it often delivers whole-of-life savings once you factor in avoided costs, fitout amortisation, staff disruption, and time to market. With the right terms and a well-structured negotiation, staying can deliver strong outcomes for people, budgets, and long-term operations.
Other times, moving is the only real option. Space limitations, outdated infrastructure, poor design, location shifts or changing operational needs can make relocation unavoidable. In a rising market, securing a new site early can also protect budgets for years, even if there is a short-term cost impact.
The lesson is simple. Plan early, run a genuine process, and let the evidence guide the decision. Because whether you stay or move, the only bad outcome is one driven by urgency or assumption.
A web of stakeholders, not just a tenant and a landlord
Every property decision has ripple effects. Government agencies, landlords, capital partners, developers, project managers, advisors, facilities teams, legal and probity advisors, Ministers’ offices, and at times entire precincts are all connected. No single party can carry disproportionate risk or disruption.
The best outcomes happen when incentives are aligned. With transparency, shared timeframes and commercial acumen, planning ahead becomes a collective effort rather than an individual burden. That is when projects gain momentum and deliver results that benefit the parties involved, while also ensuring government objectives are met with fewer risks, fewer delays and stronger value for the community.
Good property outcomes do not happen by accident. They are the result of early planning, clear process, and decisions that balance short-term pressures with long-term value. That is the real test: not whether to stay or go, but whether the decision holds up years later as the right one for the people, the budget, and the city.
Success comes from delivering balance while making sure risk and reward are shared, and that decisions hold up not just on day one, but for years to come.
A final word
In the end, the strength of a property decision is not judged at the moment it is signed, but in how well it serves the organisation and its people long after the ink has dried.
At Workable, we’ve helped deliver some of Australia’s largest, most complex, and most contested property transactions. We understand the pressures government faces, and we know how to balance those with strong commercial outcomes.
If you’re planning your next move (or wish you’d started six months ago), we’re here to help you do it right – from inside the agency all the way out to the market.
Suggested references: