In the current federal election, perspectives regarding controversial housing concessions are divided, with both major political parties facing scrutiny over their positions. The Greens, led by Adam Bandt, have actively advocated for reform, attributing the housing crisis to the capital gains discount. However, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton have both pledged to maintain the status quo, denying any impending changes.
Discussion surrounding potential reforms gained traction last year when reports emerged about federal Treasury considering a revision of tax concessions for property owners. When questioned during a debate, Albanese remarked that any modelling by Treasury was not commissioned by his government. In response, Treasurer Jim Chalmers clarified earlier comments where he had sought advice from Treasury, asserting that it did not equate to commissioning modelling, and stressed the advice suggested that changes to negative gearing would not yield significant improvements in the housing supply crisis.
Dutton argued that altering negative gearing would negatively impact renters and stated that the opposition desires a sustainable housing market containing sufficient rental properties. He accused Albanese of misrepresenting the government’s stance on housing tax reforms, with Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor echoing this sentiment by alleging that the Prime Minister deceived the public regarding hidden tax plans on housing.
A recent parliamentary report highlighted that the cost of revenue loss due to negative gearing and capital gains discounts reached $11.9 billion for the 2024/25 financial year, projected to total $180.5 billion over the next decade. Greens spokesperson Max Chandler-Mather emphasized a commitment to abolishing what he termed “massive tax handouts” for wealthy property investors, arguing that such concessions are inflating housing prices and restricting affordable home ownership for young families.
Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull asserted that negative gearing frequently comes under government scrutiny due to its fiscal implications, positing that any consideration of changes aims to balance revenue generation with housing affordability. As the election campaign unfolds, the debate highlights the complex interplay between political promises, economic realities, and the urgent need for effective housing solutions in Australia.