Daniel Wild, Deputy Executive Director of the Institute of Public Affairs, said the National Housing Accord has met zero of its 21 targets [1].
The failure to meet these benchmarks suggests a significant gap between the government's stated goals for housing accessibility and the actual outcomes for citizens. If the accord remains ineffective, the pressure on the Australian rental and buying markets may continue to intensify.
Wild described the accord as a revenue-driven "complete joke" during an interview with Peta Credlin at the Sky News Australia studio in Sydney [1, 2]. He said the government has prioritised generating revenue over the goal of increasing home ownership [1, 2].
"It’s pretty clear the government’s completely stuffed it," Wild said [1].
According to Wild, the lack of progress stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue by policymakers. He said those in charge of the initiative were operating without a clear or effective plan for implementation.
"They don’t know what they were doing," Wild said [1].
Wild said the current trajectory of the housing strategy serves fiscal interests rather than the needs of aspiring homeowners. He said the structural failures of the accord reflect a broader misalignment of priorities within the administration [1, 2].
"This is about revenue, not home ownership," Wild said [1].
“the National Housing Accord has met zero of its 21 targets”
The critique from the Institute of Public Affairs highlights a growing tension between government fiscal policy and public housing needs. By alleging that the National Housing Accord has failed every single one of its 21 targets, the IPA is framing the housing crisis not as a lack of resources, but as a deliberate policy choice to prioritize state revenue over residential stability.
