Labor Negative Gearing Approach victory for common sense

Labor’s decision to dump its previous approach to negative gearing and capital gains tax is a welcome recognition of a significant independent evidence base showing their old policies would have hurt the economy and cost construction jobs.

Modelling undertaken by Deloitte Access Economics, commissioned by the Property Council, found Labor’s policy would have reduced economic growth and failed to meet its stated objectives of improving housing affordability and increasing housing supply.

“Labor’s review is focused on campaign tactics rather than the harmful economic impacts of their negative gearing policy Achilles heel” said Ken Morrison, Chief Executive of the Property Council of Australia.

“This is good news for property owners, investors and the one-third of Australian households who rent.,” Mr Morrison said.

“Labor’s policy would have shrunk the economy by $1.5 billion, delivered a $766 million hit to construction, cost 7,800 full-time construction jobs and made almost no difference to housing affordability.

“The vast majority of property investors own just one property and are everyday Australians, not rich property barons.

Summary of Deloitte Access Economics’ analysis of ALP negative gearing and capital gains taxation policy

The Property Council of Australia commissioned Deloitte Access Economics to analyse the impact of the ALP’s negative gearing and capital gains policies that it took to the 2019 federal election and test them against the key assumptions underpinning the ALP’s policy.

This report models the ALP’s policies in full. It draws on detailed econometric modelling of Australia’s housing markets and the national economy for its findings.

Policy assumption

Deloitte finding

The policy changes would boost housing construction and housing supply.

Construction of new housing would drop under this policy, not increase.

Construction of new housing would be 4.1% lower than if there were no policy changes. This equates to a $766 million decline in construction activity in 2019 terms.

There would be no housing supply dividend. This supply drop would be worse in Sydney and Melbourne, and worse for apartment and townhouse developments in inner and middle ring suburbs of our cities.

The policy changes would make housing more affordable.

This policy would have a small impact on housing affordability.

Aggregate Australian housing prices would fall by 4.6% under this policy. Price drops would be greater in Sydney and Melbourne (up to 8%), for apartments and townhouses, and in inner and middle ring areas.

While these price drops are significant, they are unlikely to materially shift the housing affordability equation for buyers.

By 2030 the proportion of homeowners to investors would have increased by only 2.6%. In the main the policy will not convert a long-term renter into a home buyer. It will result in those who are on the way to home ownership getting there a little earlier.

The policy changes will not increase rents.

Rents would increase under this policy because of the lower stock of dwellings for rent in the market, albeit these impacts would be modest (0.5%) and evolve over time.

Rent effects are likely to be unevenly distributed and localised. Rents could be expected to increase the most in Greater Melbourne, followed by Greater Sydney and Greater Adelaide.

The policy changes will not have a negative impact on the economy.

Three scenarios were modelled – all showed the policy would reduce GDP and reduce construction industry jobs over the period 2021 to 2031.

The central scenario shows the policy would:

  • reduce GDP by $1.5 billion (or 0.1%), and

  • lead to a loss of 7,800 full time construction jobs.

This would be a good time in the market to introduce these policy changes.

Deloitte Access Economics found that the current market conditions would make this a bad time to introduce this policy.

The economic costs of introducing such a policy in a falling market are likely to be significantly greater in the short term – partly due to the falls in house prices over the past 18 months, and partly because the weak market backdrop could amplify impacts on investor sentiment and construction activity in the short term.

/Public Release. This material comes from the originating organization and may be of a point-in-time nature, edited for clarity, style and length. View in full here.