This is the benchmark entry of the register, and it is included to be quoted back at every body that says delivery data cannot be released at fine geography.

Installation counts and capacity are published by postcode, by month, by technology, going back two decades. A resident can see uptake in their own suburb. A journalist can test whether a program is reaching outer suburbs or concentrating in wealthy ones. A researcher can build a time series without asking anyone's permission.

None of the usual objections survived contact with it. Privacy is managed by aggregating to postcode. Commercial sensitivity did not prevent publication. Nobody had to be persuaded that the public would misread the numbers.

The comparison that makes this entry useful is with How many homes has the Housing Australia Future Fund actually finished, and where are they?. Both are questions of the same shape -- how much of the thing has actually happened, and where -- asked of the same government in the same year.

One is answerable by anyone in a browser. The other required an Auditor-General. The difference is not privacy, cost, or the nature of the data. It is a choice about the unit of reporting, made differently by two bodies.

Partially checked on 2026-09-03 and not upgraded. The postcode data page carries no retrievable file, so the claim that this series is published as machine-readable data by postcode remains sourced from reporting rather than from the data.

That matters more here than elsewhere, because this entry is the benchmark the register waves at other bodies. Until someone opens the file, the benchmark is itself unverified.