27 September 2024

PM reverses gear over negative gearing comments

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
13
Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Prime Minister of Australia

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese now says he has no plans to change negative gearing. Photo: Michelle Kroll.

Looks like Anthony Albanese opened up a can of worms on negative gearing that he’s finding hard to close.

Following reports in Nine Media that the Federal Government had commissioned Treasury to model some changes to investment housing tax concessions, the Prime Minister didn’t deny it when asked about it.

Instead, on Wednesday morning (25 September), the PM responded to queries about the possibility of winding back negative gearing concessions with weasel words like: “Treasury, I’m sure, like other departments, do a range of proposals, policy ideas.”

He added: “I want a public service that is full of ideas.”

And also: “I’m sure the public service is looking at policy ideas. That’s because we value them. But we have our housing policy. It’s out there for all to see.”

He didn’t outright deny the thought and he was expecting to be asked about it.

Leaving aside the issue of who informed Nine in the first place about the government’s pondering on the subject, it’s obvious the PM was testing the waters.

READ ALSO Public service looking at negative gearing tax policy, PM suggests

After all, Labor under Bill Shorten’s leadership had taken a ‘wind back negative gearing’ policy to the 2016 and 2019 federal elections.

It lost those elections, but times have changed.

Not enough, it quickly became apparent this week, to get reelected with that dead policy.

By Wednesday afternoon, Albanese was reverse gearing on negative gearing – not that he would admit to have been pedalling forward on the issue to begin with.

He reckons he hadn’t spoken to anyone about tweaking negative gearing concessions.

“What we’re doing is exactly what we said we would do, which is our Homes for Australia Plan. We have legislation,” he said in one media interview.

“My concern with proposed changes to negative gearing is that it won’t assist supply. And indeed, the work that the Property Council have done is that it would dampen supply. And I don’t want to do anything that impacts the supply of housing.

“That’s the key. We don’t have enough. That’s why we should have the Senate pass the Build to Rent scheme that’s about private rentals. That’s why they should pass our Help to Buy scheme, which is about increasing home ownership.

“That’s why we’re putting record funding into social housing through our Housing Australia Future Fund.”

READ ALSO APS adds more capability-building streams to its Professions model

Then came a flood of media appearances and interviews over 24 hours where the PM became increasingly clear that he had no plans to take changes to negative gearing as a policy platform to the next election.

“We have no plans to change negative gearing,” he said in one interview.

When it was pointed out to him that he said the same about not changing Stage 3 tax cuts (which he ultimately did, to the detriment of some high-income earners), he was able to segue into how that was the right thing to do.

But the wound for the government was already too deep for the issue to quietly go away.

The Opposition is having a riot of a time over the PM’s antics this week.

His obfuscation on negative gearing was too clever by half.

He opened the door to changes and the Coalition stormed right in.

From Opposition Leader Peter Dutton to shadow treasurer Angus Taylor and shadow finance minister Jane Hume.

They’re all making hay with the PM’s rhetoric this week – asking the voting public if they can believe anything Albanese says on tax, demanding to know what Labor’s real intentions are on negative gearing and just how complete that Treasury modelling is.

Add to that the fact that there are a number of Labor MPs who actually are lobbying for changes to the negative gearing rules as they stand and the PM has a real problem on his hands.

But, as mentioned, he opened up that can of worms by not definitively ruling out changes when first asked about it this week.

Join the conversation

13
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
HiddenDragon10:00 pm 28 Sep 24

This episode is reminiscent of the Labor gutlessness which allowed Howard and Costello to change capital gains tax rules which rewarded longer term holding of assets to a system which greatly incentivised asset price speculation and allowed people who do that for a living to pay a much lower proportion of their income in taxation compared to people who do real work (or something approximating that).

It’s probably too much to hope that the leak which started all of this was an opening salvo in a campaign which would put Albanese, and much of the nation, out of his/our misery but even if it has thus far been mishap rather than Machiavelli, there is still time for a killing season before the silly season.

Incidental Tourist8:10 pm 28 Sep 24

Owner occupiers have no NG and they pay no CGT. Investors are eligible to NG and they must pay half CGT. These rules are rigid and either group has no choice.

I trust some owner occupiers would love NG now and pay full CGT later. Also some investors would prefer no CGT forfeiting NG at the same time.

Why not to give all of them the same choice making it even playing field?

Both investors and owner occupiers can be given free choice of opting in NG which comes bundled with full CGT later. Alternatively they can forfeit NG and they pay no CGT when sell.

As we have now homeowners in the mix I tend to think we will transition from half CGT to full CGT easier and increase volume of those who pay full CGT. As the choice is free there should be virtually no political resistance to such change.

Can’t stand the man but I have always thought negative gearing to support loses on an investment is just crazy. Shut it down.

Funny how some property spivs on this site think that axing tax handouts to 9.3% of the population, many of them Liberal voters, will hurt Labor’s chances.

Negative gearing in a nutshell: The impact on housing stock is tiny, but the effect on housing affordability of all those investors bidding up the prices of existing housing is likely to be substantial. Labor would be wise to axe it and sell it to the 90.7% who don’t benefit.

devils_advocate10:14 am 28 Sep 24

“ bidding up the prices of existing housing”

Lmao

Have you ever actually been to an auction?

The investors aren’t the ones bidding emotionally (and they aren’t getting help from mum and dad to lodge bids above market price)

That’s quite the dream world you are running with there devils_advocate, where additional auction participants (demand) doesn’t impact the final price, and/or investors are all in the shade watching from the sidelines as cashed up first home buyers and owner occupiers go at it. As it happens, the ACT economic indicators demonstrate that the Housing finance for investors numbers outpaced both owner occupiers and first home buyers over the last year.

devils_advocate7:16 pm 28 Sep 24

Lol

I didn’t say investors weren’t buying

I said it was owner-occupiers who were bidding prices up above market due to their emotional investment

Builders and developers pay for the dirt

Investors buy the income stream

Owner occupiers pay over the odds

Anyone with significant exposure to the market sees this play out all the time

GrumpyGrandpa4:59 pm 27 Sep 24

Sounds very much Albo was “flying the kite”; throw a vague line out about the public service doing their job & running numbers, gauge the reaction, then confirm no change to NG.

Without overwhelming support, Albo won’t take NG to the election. It cost Shorten the leadership. If there are going to be changes, it’ll be following further reviews, after the election.

Politicans, regardless of their persuasion, are simply interested in getting re-elected.

devils_advocate11:54 am 27 Sep 24

Shorten: watch me lose an unlosable election

Albo: hold my shandy

Tempus Viator11:09 am 27 Sep 24

Both Leaders of the two major parties seem to be genuine however, neither of them are Leaders (eg lacking the ability to communicate clearing about what they are doing for the whole of the country).

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.