Property investors back negative gearing and CGT reform ahead of federal budget

Based on a survey of 4,253 Australians conducted between March 19 and April 10, 2026, the Home Truths Index revealed that 64 per cent of respondents backed federal government reform of current housing tax breaks to drive more housing supply.

Investors made up 1317, or 31 per cent, of all respondents, and of these, 68 per cent supported negative gearing and CGT changes.

“Our data shows that the vast majority of the community as a whole supports change, and slightly more investors support change than the rest of the population,” says AMPLIFY chief executive Georgina Harrison.

“They see the impact on their own children and on others.

“It’s a really interesting insight that at the kind of population level, people are looking beyond their own interests and they’re looking at the housing crisis as it is playing out where they live, for the people they know, and they want to see change.”

Hal Pawson, Professor of housing research and policy, and associate director at UNSW’s City Futures Research Centre, agrees the shift is due to a growing awareness among property owners of the impact of the current tax regime.

“[They’re] coming to kind of understand these arguments that the country as a whole is suffering as a result of some of these tax settings,” he says.

“I think there’s at least some recognition that even for people who are personally benefiting, that other members of their family, their children or their grandchildren, and the country as a whole, isn’t well served by leaving those kinds of settings in place.”

While support for restructure grows, faith in the government to deliver continues to fall.

The survey showed trust in the federal government to take the right actions on housing had reached a new low of 39 per cent, down from 48 per cent in AMPLIFY’s October poll.

State and local governments rate only slightly higher, at 44 per cent and 43 per cent, respectively.

Harrison believes the lack of urgency in the government’s response is feeding widespread scepticism.

“I think what we’re seeing across the community is that they’re really feeling the pain of the housing crisis,” she says.

“This is something that, no matter who you talk to, or where they live, whether it’s metro or regional parts of the country, this is biting everywhere.

“And you layer on cost-of-living pressures, and the number of people who are now living in housing stress, and this is absolutely a majority issue.”

Harrison says the crisis has been a long time in the making, and actions to address it have a long lead time to create an impact, yet the community can’t see a plan to deliver change.

“They’re not seeing anything that can materially impact the worker shortages in the construction industry on a meaningful timeline; they’re not seeing anything that is actually about holding people to account for delivering outcomes.

“They want to see clear leadership, a strong focus, strong accountability with actions that will really boost supply coming through.”

Harrison says that while the 5% Deposit Scheme, aimed at fast-tracking first-home ownership, has helped almost a quarter of a million people enter the market, it’s also pushed up prices.

New analysis from Cotality shows that since October last year, properties with an estimated value below the 5% deposit guarantee scheme price caps have recorded stronger growth than higher-priced homes.

Six-month growth trends show a 6.7 per cent increase for homes below the price cap compared to 3.6 per cent for homes above the cap.

“It’s a really interesting position we find ourselves in,” says Harrison.

“Something that on the one hand is successful, but on the other hand is really punishing people.”

Pawson says in the long term, the financialisation of housing, where property is perceived more as a financial asset than as a place to live, is damaging to the whole country.

“We’ve got policies in place which are making the problem of housing affordability worse,” he says, arguing it’s important for the government to not only address perceived supply issues, but also focus on excess demand for housing.

“We should be looking for a broader review of property taxation and housing policy more generally, where we’re not only focused so exclusively on the amount of housing, on the housing shortage if there is one, but we should be looking also at how we use our housing more efficiently and how we better encourage the output of the house building industry.”

Harrison says the majority of people surveyed would like the government to treat the housing crisis as a national emergency.

“[The government is] saying out loud to the community, day in, day out, that they’re fixing the housing crisis,” she says.

“But it feels like they’re treating it like any other policy issue, not the way they would treat something like the fuel crisis, like we’re seeing now.

“You don’t see the national cabinet having a kind of focus on housing.

“You don’t see housing ministers being summoned to Canberra, or whatever that kind of signal would be to say we’re really taking this seriously … they’re not seeing that kind of collective wholesale response across government in the way that this issue impacts across those portfolios.”

Harrison says AMPLIFY’s research shows a clear political mandate to make bold moves.

“Now is the time for the government to seize that and to really move us forward on this crisis, rather than maintaining the current pace and ambition. There is room and a mandate to go further.”