PM not so positive on negative gearing changes | Canberra CityNews

Anthony Albanese repeatedly said there are “no plans” to touch the negative gearing tax concession. (Bianca De Marchi/AAP PHOTOS)

By Dominic Giannini in Canberra

The prime minister can’t see the positives in negative gearing changes but is being attacked for using the same rhetoric before reneging on a pledge not to touch tax cuts.

Anthony Albanese is being pressured to reveal whether the federal government is planning any changes to negative gearing, which is where property investors can offset losses against other income.

Asked on the national broadcaster whether he was considering a negative gearing and capital gains tax reform to take to the next election, he said, “no we’re not”.

This government was focused on addressing supply through a range of investment options, he said.

Across a slate of other breakfast TV interviews on Wednesday dominated by the issue, Mr Albanese was less definitive, repeatedly asserting there were “no plans” to touch the tax concession.

He also cast doubt on whether negative gearing changes would be a positive thing for investment in housing supply, which he said remained the focus.

“The problem is all of the analysis shows that a change to negative gearing will not assist supply,” he told Sky News.

The prime minister’s language came under scrutiny after he and his ministers repeatedly asserted there were “no plans” to change the stage three tax cut package – a Labor election pledge – before announcing an overhaul.

The opposition criticised the prime minister’s “no plans” rhetoric, with housing spokesman Michael Sukkar calling it “verbal gymnastics” similar to that used before Labor changed the tax cuts.

Mr Albanese defended changing the tax package to favour lower to middle-income earners, saying times had changed.

The Greens seized on this to argue economic times had indeed changed, which was why negative gearing and capital gains reform was necessary.

Housing was taxed enough and he ruled out support for a cap to the number of houses the concession applied to, Mr Sukkar said.

The majority of people who negatively geared property only had a single investment, he said.

“We support the current arrangements that Australian mums and dads rely on as a normal feature of the tax system,” he told Sky News.

“If someone is able to negatively gear their share portfolio, a mum or dad should not be denied the same opportunity with owning an investment property.”

Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor added: “I don’t know how taxing mum and dad investors more is going to increase supply”.

The debate reignited after reports the Treasury was considering policy options for negative gearing.

Mr Albanese said he didn’t tell them to do it and it was a good thing the public service was being “creative” while Treasurer Jim Chalmers said his department “looks at all kinds of different policies from time to time”.

“Treasury don’t need to be directed, they’re not schoolchildren with teachers up the front of the class, telling them what to do,” Mr Albanese said.

“I want a public service that looks at ideas, that looks at policy.”