The Auditor-General’s report into the Housing Australia Future Fund is out, and it carries a finding the government would rather not have seen in print. The fund’s own promise of 40,000 social and affordable homes by mid-2029 now faces, in the auditor’s words, considerable uncertainty.
The number behind that finding is stark. Less than four per cent of the 40,000 homes promised have been delivered, two years into a five-year target period. On the current pace, the program is at real risk of finishing thousands of homes short.
The verdict splits neatly down the middle. Treasury built a sound scheme on paper. Getting it out of the ground is another story, and the delivery count shows how far behind that job has fallen.
For builders, community housing providers and anyone weighing whether to chase HAFF-backed work, the report is worth reading past the politics. It confirms what a lot of the sector already suspected about the pace, and it tells you where the HAFF actually stands.
What the audit actually said
The Australian National Audit Office released its report on Tuesday. Its job was narrow and specific: assess how effectively Treasury designed and delivered the fund.
On design, Treasury came out well. The report found the design of the Housing Australia Future Fund was largely effective and supported by largely sound policy advice. It also credited Treasury with improving the program over successive funding rounds, drawing on earlier lessons and stakeholder feedback.
On delivery, the picture was harder. The audit found Treasury had not taken clear responsibility for delivering the program and had provided little transparency about how it was progressing. Funding applications opened in January 2024, but Treasury did not finalise its delivery arrangements until May 2026.
The Auditor-General was direct about what that delay cost. The late finalisation of most governance and oversight arrangements limited Treasury’s ability to systematically monitor and manage program risks and performance over time. Once those arrangements were in place, they were not always applied as intended, and were at times out of date and inconsistent. Risk management arrangements were found to be insufficient, including for shared risks.
The audit made five recommendations covering governance, risk management, performance review and transparency. Treasury accepted all five.
What the HAFF is
The HAFF is a $10 billion investment fund established in November 2023 and managed by the Future Fund Board. It does not build homes directly. From July 2024, $500 million a year is disbursed to Housing Australia, which channels it to community housing providers and, in later rounds, states and private partners. Those recipients build the homes or buy newly built stock, then manage it at below-market rents for 25 years. The target is 40,000 new social and affordable homes over five years from 2024.
The delivery gap in numbers
As of May 2026, 1,432 homes had been delivered. Against a 40,000 target with the clock at the halfway mark, that is the figure driving every headline.
The audit added a detail worth pausing on. Of those 1,432 homes, 762 were new builds constructed by housing providers. The other 670 were built by private developers and purchased by a housing provider before, during or shortly after construction. So a little under half the delivered homes were not new supply generated by the fund itself. They were existing or in-train projects bought into the program.
The Auditor-General also found the fund’s forecast to hit its target by mid-2029 faced considerable uncertainty as of June. That is the line the sector should sit with. It stops short of saying the target will be missed, but a formal warning that a flagship housing target may not be reached is about as pointed as an audit gets. On the delivery rate to date, meeting 40,000 by mid-2029 would take a dramatic acceleration.
Predictably, the two sides read the same report differently. The government points to the finding that its design was sound and to homes now moving through construction. The Coalition points to the delivery count and argues that buying existing homes is not the same as building new supply. Both readings draw on the same audit. For builders, the more useful question is not who wins the argument, but whether the pipeline keeps moving while it plays out.
The backdrop makes the stakes plain. Social housing is sitting at around four per cent of total dwelling stock and has been declining. The social housing waitlist grew from 155,000 to 169,000 in the decade to June 2024. And this lands against the broader housing supply picture, where the construction industry is running about a year behind the National Housing Accord goal of 1.2 million new homes by mid-2029.
What the industry already said
None of this will surprise builders who followed the audit from the start. When the ANAO first confirmed it would review the fund, the sector gave cautious support and warned against using the audit as a reason to slow delivery. The message to Canberra was consistent: transparency is welcome, a pause is not.
That warning matters more now the findings are public. A critical report creates political pressure to be seen tightening controls. For a program already behind, the risk is that new governance layers slow the flow of projects that are struggling to reach site in the first place.
Why this matters on the ground
The HAFF is not an abstract Canberra program. It underpins real pipelines. Projects across Perth, the Central Coast and the ACT are being delivered through the fund and its related facilities right now, with builders contracted and community housing providers managing the stock.
When a program of this size runs behind and governance gets flagged, three things tend to follow for the businesses attached to it. Timelines get less predictable. Payment and milestone arrangements come under closer scrutiny. And the administrative load on providers and their build partners goes up.
For subcontractors and smaller builders in these consortia, that lands squarely on cash flow certainty. Government-backed work is often prized for being reliable. A program still bedding down its delivery arrangements two years in is a reminder that “government-backed” and “predictable” are not always the same thing. Progress claims, documented variations and written finance milestones matter just as much on a HAFF project as on a private build. Arguably more, given the number of parties in the chain.
THE GOOD BUILDER TAKE
The split verdict is the useful part here. This was not a scheme that was poorly conceived. It was a scheme that was slow to stand up the plumbing needed to run it, and the homes count shows the cost of that delay.
Treasury accepting all five recommendations is the right move, and the transparency improvements should help the sector see where projects actually stand. But the industry’s original warning holds. The fix for a program that is behind is not to wrap it in more process. It is to get delivery arrangements working and keep projects moving.
Builders do not need the target quietly walked back or the pipeline stalled while Canberra tidies its governance. They need certainty about what is funded, when it is contracted, and how quickly it reaches site. That is the test the next two years will apply. The design was sound. Now the delivery has to catch up.
Related Articles
How to run a building business in Australia
This article is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or professional advice. Laws, regulations, and industry requirements vary by state and territory and change over time. Builders and trades professionals should seek independent advice relevant to their specific circumstances before making business, legal, or financial decisions.vant to their specific circumstances before making business, legal, or financial decisions.
0 Comments