The numbers don’t lie when it comes to the apparent failure of the Albanese Government’s affordable housing program.

It’s a tough call but the numbers don’t lie when it comes to the failure that is the Albanese Government’s affordable housing program. The target was 40,000 homes over a five-year period that commenced two years ago. But wait for it, only 2% of that number have been built!

The Housing Australia Future Fund program earmarked $10 billion to deliver new social and affordable homes over that five-year time period.

Not helping has been Housing Australia (HA), which the AFR’s Michael Bleby explained is the agency overseeing the Housing Australia Future Fund program and “has also been under pressure after revelations of poor governance and the high-risk approach it took in the rush to get moving on Labor’s signature policy”.

However, HA reckons it has learnt from its failures to date and predicts “housing completions would more than triple this calendar year, with a further 9,485 homes under development and more than 8,000 in planning.”

Of course, this is a predicted future from a group that has underwhelmed to date, with Bleby showing that 895 social and affordable homes completed by December last year is equal to 4.8% of the 18,650 homes that have been commissioned in the first two years!

Like most government-led forays into what the private sector generally does better, there’s a battle between two ways HA engages developer/builders. “New figures show last year’s 895 completions comprise 556 homes from so-called applicant-led projects in which the successful bidder developed the dwellings itself, while just 339 were turnkey,” Belby explained. And “direct building of homes by successful bidders has delivered more homes than turnkey homes acquired from third-party developers”.

Housing Industry Association chief economist Tim Reardon said: “Engaging directly with a builder (through a turnkey procurement) to build a certain volume of homes is likely to achieve an efficiency gain, but this method has had less support”.

The alternative applicant-led approach has the positives “that it’s likely to be in a specific location where clients of CHPs (community housing providers) live. A turnkey purchase is likely to be in a greenfields site, without an established population, and requires clients to relocate,” Reardon pointed out.

It’s hard not to conclude that this is a typical failed operation, created by political/electoral objectives and has been run by a government body whose poor track record means it has to make bold, positive predictions about how this important project will get back on track.

However, the facts show it has never been on track. A lack of real political resolve by the Minister for Housing Clare O’Neil and the Prime Minister hasn’t helped.

The AFR listed some completed projects such as

“Assemble’s Swift Walk development in Melbourne, City West Housing’s Boronia Apartments in Sydney’s Waterloo and Unity Housing’s Coast development in Adelaide’s Henley Beach South”, which are part of the 895 social and affordable homes completed by the end of December.

Note that while these are in areas that would be better for potential social housing tenants, they would be more costly and more difficult to build than turnkey homes built by private builders in greenfield sites.

What the Government has seen built might be socially better but it’s economically hopeless, with only 2% of 40,000 homes built! Actual homes built for the homeless look like a better priority than what’s happening now.

Clearly, this project of homes for the socially disadvantaged is built on shaky foundations.