@mikepmoffatt Australian here, but we're basically having the exact same debates. And obviously we inherited a very similar system of federal parliamentary democracy from the British.

There's some additional ones that we have that I don't think you guys share, like negative gearing. (Basically, our federal government gives people a tax break if they lose money while renting out an Investment property. You can imagine how that distorts our property market.)

But there are some more big factors that I think might be common.

The first is: Which level of government is best placed, in terms of resources, to fix the problem?

Which level of government /could/ provide a lot of funding for new rail projects that could support new TODs?

Which government has the most access to resources that could be used to set up a public property development agency?

Which level of government could fund the most public housing, if it wanted?

The second is: Which level of government is responsible for regulating the banks?

Particularly relevant, given (at least here, and I'd imagine also in Canada) its banks that provide housing loans.

And third: Which level of government could disincentivise land banking by introducing a nationwide land tax?

Australia had such a national land tax from 1910, but it got repealed in 1953: https://www.pbo.gov.au/about-budgets/budget-insights/budget-explainers/tax-mix/brief-history/1901-to-1950