Australia has been arguing about negative gearing for nearly four decades. And we have tried reforming it before. In 1985, Treasurer Paul Keating quarantined it. Two years later, reversed the change.
So when the 2026 Federal Budget announced limits on negative gearing from 1 July 2027, both sides of the debate reached for the same old arguments.
The housing affordability camp said it was overdue. The investor lobby said it would hurt renters. The truth, as usual, sits somewhere in the middle and depends heavily on the type of investor in question.
The Case That This Is Smart Policy
The Tax Revenue Cost Has Been Enormous
Negative gearing by property investors reduced personal income tax revenue by $6.7 billion in the 2014-15 financial year and $10.9 billion in 2023-24. That figure was projected to reach $12.3 billion in 2024-25.
That is money the federal government does not collect, year after year, primarily to subsidise the running costs of properties that already exist. No new home gets built. No new rental gets added to the supply. The established property just changes hands with a tax break attached.
The Benefits Have Skewed Upward
RBA analysis found that the top 20% of income earners receive more than 50% of the benefits of negative gearing. Nearly three-quarters of investors sit in the top two income quintiles.
A high-income professional earning $250,000 at the top marginal rate saves $4,700 on every $10,000 of rental loss. A public servant on $80,000 saves only $3,200 on the same loss.
The system, as it stood, handed the biggest reward to people who needed it the least. Restricting that benefit to new builds at least ties the tax concession to an outcome that adds housing supply rather than just shifting ownership.
The 1985 Lesson Is More Nuanced Than It Looks
According to ABS data using inflation-adjusted figures, rents rose in Sydney and Perth, were flat in Melbourne and Adelaide, and fell in Brisbane. If removing negative gearing had caused rents to rise, they should have risen across all rental markets nationally. The claim that the policy alone caused a rental crisis was, by the data, exaggerated.
Economist Saul Eslake has argued that rent increases during the 1985 to 1987 quarantine period were limited to Sydney and Perth, and that both cities already had unusually low vacancy rates before the policy change, suggesting other factors were responsible.
The 2026 reform also differs structurally from 1985. It keeps negative gearing intact for new builds, which is designed to keep investor money flowing into construction rather than out of property altogether.
The Policy Redirects Investment Rather Than Removes It
The impact on overall housing supply is likely to be very small and potentially positive. The combined effect of all policies is expected to be neutral to slightly positive for supply.
The reforms may motivate investors to focus on acquiring new builds or transforming existing properties to meet new build criteria, thereby unlocking tax benefits. This potentially encourages the conversion of larger residential lots into smaller subdivided lots, resulting in greater housing density.
That is the structural argument for the policy. If the tax system pushes investor capital toward new construction, more homes get built.
The Case That This Is an Investor Setback
It Creates a Two-Speed System With Real Complexity
The reforms introduce additional complexity for property investors by creating a dual system with rules that vary depending on the property type and purchase date.
Investors now need to track not just their rental income and expenses but which property falls into which regime. The interaction between grandfathered properties, new builds, and established properties bought after Budget night creates genuine record-keeping demands.
Professional bodies such as CPA Australia have noted that the changes may alter long-term investment behaviour and increase complexity for some investors. Many experts note that investment decisions are typically made over extended timeframes, meaning stability and predictability in tax settings can play an important role in investor confidence.
Younger Investors Bear the Heaviest Cost
Some analysts suggest the changes may have a greater impact on younger or future investors seeking to enter the market than on existing property owners.
An investor who held an established property before 7:30 pm AEST on 12 May 2026 is fully protected. An investor buying their first established property after that date gets none of that protection.
The grandfathering draws a hard line based on timing rather than circumstance, meaning two investors in virtually identical situations face different rules based solely on timing.
The Rental Supply Risk Is Legitimate in Tight Markets
Industry figures have argued that limiting negative gearing to new builds assumes rental supply is interchangeable and that a new apartment in an outer growth corridor does not replace a rental home near a school, hospital, or train line. Regional markets are described as even more exposed, with many simply lacking the development pipelines to absorb the policy shift.
If investors in established rentals reduce their activity in specific local markets, particularly regional centres where new construction is limited, renters in those areas feel it directly. The national average rent impact estimated by the Treasury at around $2 per week may mask sharper increases in individual markets.
Commercial Property Becomes Relatively More Attractive
Commercial property may emerge as an attractive alternative for property investors, as it appears to remain unaffected by the negative gearing tax reforms.
If that shift happens at scale, it redirects capital away from residential property entirely, which does nothing for either housing supply or rental stock.
Where Both Sides Are Oversimplifying
Claim | Reality |
“This will crash house prices” | CBA forecasts prices 3% lower than they otherwise would have been, not a price fall |
“Rents will skyrocket” | Treasury estimates around $2 per week increase nationally; local impacts will vary |
“Only wealthy investors are affected” | Younger first-time investors in established property carry a disproportionate share of the change |
“It will fix housing affordability” | Deposit barriers, serviceability, and supply shortfalls remain unchanged |
What Decides Which Side You Land On
The honest answer is that it depends on what you think property investment tax concessions are for.
- If you think the tax system should reward investment that adds housing supply, then redirecting negative gearing to new builds is consistent and defensible. The $10.9 billion annual cost to revenue in 2023-24 was largely subsidising the transfer of existing homes rather than creating new ones.
- If you think property investment stability depends on consistent rules and that renters in established suburbs bear the transition cost unfairly, then the reform imposes a real burden on people who are not the primary beneficiaries of the system it is meant to fix.
Both positions have merit. What neither side can honestly claim is certainty about how this plays out over five to ten years, because Australia’s housing market is driven by population growth, construction capacity, interest rates, and state-level planning rules that no single federal tax reform controls.
What investors who hold established properties bought before Budget night can do now is nothing. Their position is protected. What investors considering established property from here need to do is run the numbers without the salary offset, because that offset is no longer available, and the investment case needs to work without it.
These reforms are not yet law. The measures were announced as part of the 2026-27 Federal Budget and are proposed to take effect from 1 July 2027, subject to legislation passing Parliament.
Related Articles:
