Negative gearing, capital gains tax changes back on the table
Unions urge reforms to negative gearing & CGT concessions to boost housing affordability for young Australians as home prices & rents soar.
australianpropertyupdate.com.auHere’s the latest on negative gearing as of early 2026.
-
Australia-wide policy context: The Labor government has repeatedly stated there are no current plans to change negative gearing, even as Treasury modeling and discussions about housing policy reveal ongoing consideration of how tax concessions interact with housing supply and affordability. This stance was echoed by senior officials in late 2024 and remained a live talking point into 2025–26, with some lawmakers proposing reforms as part of broader housing affordability packages and budget considerations.[1][2][4]
-
Recent developments and signals: In late 2024 to early 2025, reports and broadcasts suggested Treasury had conducted modeling on negative gearing and capital gains tax (CGT), with ministers not ruling out changes in principle, though the government publicly emphasized boosting housing supply rather than altering tax concessions as the preferred path. Public statements in 2024–25 show a pattern of exploring options while stopping short of committing to reforms before elections or budgets.[3][6][1]
-
Notable positions and arguments: Supporters of reform, including certain crossbench and union groups, have argued that tightening negative gearing or CGT concessions could improve housing affordability for first-time buyers and renters, while economists warn limited price impact and potential rent effects depending on the design of any changes. These debates persist in commentary and analysis across 2024–26.[2][5][6]
-
2026 snapshot: Within early 2026 coverage, there are ongoing discussions in media and policy circles about whether the Treasury’s modelling will feed into budget decisions, and whether any reform path will be pursued alongside broader housing policy measures. The government has framed its priority as addressing housing supply, with negative gearing reform remaining a contested option rather than an imminent policy change.[4][8]
Illustration: A timeline-style view of the debate shows Treasury modelling appearing as a recurring thread, with political decisions punctuating promises to focus on supply rather than tax changes, and with reform advocates pushing for targeted limits or property caps as potential options.[1][2][4]
If you’d like, I can pull direct quotes from specific articles or prepare a short, color-coded summary of the main reform options that have been proposed (e.g., restrict to new homes, cap the number of negatively geared properties, eliminate negative gearing for existing properties).