::::I don't mind presenting alternative concepts, but I'm not sure that your sources really support your view.  This one says, for example, that "MAH seeks to provide appropriate, secure, well located and affordable housing"  clearly suggesting that housing can be inappropriate, insecure, badly located, and still "affordable."  The Brisbane TImes article considers only cost relative to income.  Queensland clearly supports a total-cost-of-housing approach in practice (thus their interest in transportation costs, for example).  In the US, publicly funded projects must meet more requirements than just cost, but we call a falling-down shack "indecent" or a "health hazard," not "unaffordable."  If Australia uses "affordable housing" as a code word for what the rest of the world calls "decent and affordable housing," then I don't mind including that definition  but your original proposal to replace everyone else's definition is not acceptable to me.