Australia has a detailed scoreboard for outcomes but still lacks national target data for all four reforms that the National Agreement says should change the way governments work. That measurement gap is not peripheral: shared decision-making, community control, government transformation and shared access to data are the Agreement’s stated mechanism for accelerating progress.
What changed
- One target is now met: preschool enrolment.
- Four national targets are worsening: childhood development, adult imprisonment, out-of-home care and suicide.
- Queensland is worsening on three justice/child-protection targets: adult imprisonment, youth detention and out-of-home care.
- The structural-data problem remains: the Productivity Commission dashboard says no target data are available for any of the four Priority Reforms.
The record
The Productivity Commission released its sixth Annual Data Compilation Report on 29 July 2026. Of the 19 national targets, one has been met, three are improving and on track, five are improving but not on track, two show no change from baseline, four are worsening and three cannot yet be assessed.
The target now met is preschool enrolment. Employment and the two land-and-sea rights targets are improving and on track. The worsening targets are the proportion of children developmentally on track when starting school, adult imprisonment, children in out-of-home care and suicide. Youth detention shows no national change from baseline.
The Commission’s jurisdictional assessment says Queensland is improving on most assessable targets but worsening on adult imprisonment, youth detention and the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care.
The deeper issue sits above the outcome targets. The National Agreement is built around four Priority Reforms: formal partnerships and shared decision-making; building the community-controlled sector; transforming government organisations; and shared access to data at a regional level. The Commission’s current dashboard states that target data are unavailable for each of them. The 2026 report says governments are still developing ways to measure progress toward the four reforms.
Why it matters
A government can report an outcome target while remaining much less transparent about whether it has changed the institutional behaviour supposed to produce the outcome. That creates an accountability asymmetry: the consequences are measurable before the reform of government itself is.
The Commission also says it is due to commence its second inquiry into government progress under the Agreement in 2026. That review therefore matters for more than another summary of target trajectories. It is an opportunity to ask whether the four Priority Reforms have moved from agreed language into measurable practice.
What remains unresolved
- When will national target data become available for each Priority Reform?
- How will governments demonstrate that decision-making power and funding are actually shifting, rather than merely being consulted upon?
- What will the second Productivity Commission review conclude about government transformation since its 2024 review?
- Can current Commonwealth and state implementation plans be tied to measurable structural change?
Watch next
Second Productivity Commission review → Priority Reform measurement → jurisdiction-specific implementation → whether worsening justice and child-protection outcomes are matched by demonstrable changes in how governments make decisions and fund services.