Curtin, Perth's most prestigious pocket, has delivered a striking result: voters overwhelmingly support winding back negative gearing despite being among the policy's biggest beneficiaries. The finding, revealed in recent survey data, challenges a persistent political assumption that wealthy Australians will simply vote to protect their tax breaks.
The evidence is clear on the numbers. The teal-held seat of Curtin in Perth's west received $5043 on average, per person in capital gains tax breaks annually. Curtin is situated in Perth's most affluent area in the suburbs just north and west of the city-centre. The seat's weekly median family income is more than $3200, about $1000 higher than the State average. These residents are, by any measure, disproportionate beneficiaries of the current system.
Yet survey results show them backing change. This pattern hints at a more complex public mood than politicians often assume when citing electoral backlash as an obstacle to reform. It suggests that even those with a direct financial stake in tax arrangements may be willing to reconsider them on principle.
The question of negative gearing has occupied Australian policymakers for decades. Treasurer Jim Chalmers confirmed in early 2026 that the government is modelling targeted reforms to negative gearing ahead of the May budget, with Treasury considering a cap that would limit negative gearing deductions to a maximum of two investment properties per person. Updated Parliamentary Budget Office figures show the revenue forgone, from providing tax breaks for landlords, would add up to $181.2 billion in the 10 financial years to 2034-35 — almost double the $93.1 billion in forfeited revenue in the decade to 2024-25.
There are genuine tensions in this debate. Those opposing reform worry about unintended consequences. The Property Council of Australia recently cautioned that reducing the CGT discount for existing properties could force investors to raise rents to cover their costs, further squeezing an already tight rental market and deterring the future development of new housing stock. The Opposition has stated it is highly unlikely the Coalition would support winding back these concessions, arguing that taxing housing further will not solve the core issue of a lack of new building supply. These are not frivolous concerns; housing supply remains a genuine constraint on affordability.
Yet the Curtin result suggests something worth considering. The common political narrative holds that voters protect their own economic interests above principle. The Perth survey indicates that narrative may underestimate people's willingness to back reform when the case for it is clear. Wealthy Curtin voters, apparently well aware that they benefit disproportionately from negative gearing, are backing its curtailment anyway.
This does not resolve the policy question. Balancing housing supply, investor incentives, and fiscal responsibility remains complex. But it does suggest that political resistance to reform may be softer than policymakers fear, and that Australian voters, even when self-interest points one way, are prepared to judge tax policy on its broader merits.