06/06/2026
If your first question is “Which party/individual proposed it ❓” instead of “Will it work ❓” you’re doing politics wrong❗️
Before sharing my thoughts I want to acknowledge my team and thank them for the countless hours they spent researching the proposal
The proposed changes would start from 1 July 2027, giving investors, builders, developers and the market time to adjust
Even more importantly existing negatively geared properties are protected and won’t be affected. Investors who already own these properties keep their current arrangements with the changes mainly applying to future purchases from 1 July 2027.
There are no forced sales, no sudden changes and no disruption to existing investments. This is why I struggle with the argument that rents will suddenly rise because of these reforms.
If nothing changes for an investor’s existing property why would they suddenly need to increase rent because of a policy that does not affect that property? That argument simply does not make much sense.
The policy does not shut the door on investors. There is still a clear path for investment because negative gearing remains available for newly built homes.
This is one of the strongest parts of the proposal. This policy does not punish investment it encourages investment into new housing. The proposal is designed to help increase housing supply.
Investors who build or buy newly built homes would still receive incentives shifting the focus from existing homes to adding new homes to the market. Australia does not have a shortage of investors. We have a shortage of homes.
This may create an even stronger incentive to invest in newly built homes because the tax benefits remain available there. If more investment flows into new housing construction that could help increase supply which is exactly what Australia needs.
The changes will reduce competition between investors and first home buyers for existing homes. With fewer investors competing for established properties first home buyers may have a better chance of getting into the market and this could help reduce pressure on prices.
The proposal also raises a bigger question about housing in Australia. Homes are places to live but they have increasingly become investment assets. Many Australians feel locked out of home ownership while others own multiple properties.
A housing system should first help people find a place to live while still encouraging investment that increases supply.
Australia has a huge amount of money tied up in residential property. If some of that investment is redirected into areas such as technology, innovation, manufacturing, AI and other productive industries the whole economy could benefit. Countries become wealthier when investment goes into industries that create new products, new services, new jobs and new ideas.
This policy will not solve Australia’s housing crisis on its own. We still need more housing supply, faster planning approvals less unnecessary red tape, better infrastructure and policies that support both renters and aspiring homeowners.
But after taking the time to understand the proposal I can see a balanced policy with lots of benefits encouraging investment that creates new housing, protecting existing investors, giving first home buyers a fairer chance and directing incentives towards increasing supply.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts 😊
