Two years into the federal government’s flagship Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF), delivery numbers remain well below headline targets but forward indicators suggest a stronger construction pipeline may materially lift completions over the next three years.
According to reporting by the Australian Financial Review, just over 2 per cent of HAFF’s 40,000-home target has been completed so far, despite the program being nearly halfway through its five-year delivery window. The figures have intensified scrutiny on Housing Australia, the agency responsible for administering the fund, particularly around early governance practices and procurement strategy during the program’s rushed launch phase.
By the end of December, 895 social and affordable homes had been completed across projects in Melbourne, Sydney, and Adelaide. These include multi-building developments delivered through partnerships between specialist affordable housing developers and community housing providers. While the absolute number is modest relative to national need, sector analysts note that affordable housing delivery cycles are typically back-loaded due to planning, approvals, financing, and construction lead times.
Housing Australia has indicated that output is expected to accelerate significantly. The agency reports nearly 9,500 homes are currently under development and more than 8,000 are in planning. It forecasts up to 3,000 HAFF-supported social and affordable dwellings could become operational in 2026 alone, with construction commencements increasing as later funding rounds move forward under tighter timelines.
Procurement Model Split Emerging
Delivery data from the first two funding rounds shows a meaningful difference between procurement pathways. Applicant-led developments, where approved providers manage and build projects directly, have produced more completed homes to date than turnkey acquisitions purchased from third-party developers.
This outcome is notable because turnkey purchases were initially positioned as a faster pathway to bring stock online. In practice, applicant-led projects have outperformed early expectations on delivery volume, though both models remain active within the program.
Industry economists point out the trade-off is not purely about speed. Turnkey projects can achieve cost and construction efficiencies through direct builder engagement and scale. Applicant-led developments, however, are often better aligned with existing tenant communities and service networks, reducing relocation pressure and improving long-term tenancy outcomes, a key quality metric in social and affordable housing delivery.
Compressed Timelines May Shift Strategy
The third HAFF funding round introduces shorter delivery windows, with successful bidders required to have homes operational by mid-2029. This compresses project timelines compared with earlier rounds and may influence bidders toward faster-to-deliver turnkey pathways, although Housing Australia maintains that ground-up developments remain viable within the schedule.
Financing structures are also evolving. Round three increases the concessional loan component to 20 per cent for the contract term, alongside senior debt facilities. Some community housing providers have raised concerns that the higher overall debt exposure, which becomes interest-bearing after 25 years, could pressure balance sheets and potentially force asset sales later, risking removal of stock from the affordable pool. Housing Australia counters that asset value growth and portfolio structuring should support long-term retention.
Delivery Still Matters More Than Commitments
From a policy and market perspective, the key measure of HAFF’s success will not be approvals or funding allocations, but operational dwellings delivered and retained as affordable stock over time. The current gap between targets and completions highlights the structural friction in scaling affordable housing nationally, from procurement design and funding mechanics to construction capacity and location suitability.
The next 18–24 months will be decisive. If the projected construction surge materialises, HAFF could still meet its aggregate targets within the revised delivery curve. If not, pressure will likely intensify for procurement reform, financing adjustments, and closer performance oversight.
Related Articles
