Research using the information about Members of Parliament’s personal financial information tells us that the nation’s politicians are mad about property. And this revelation makes it very unlikely we’ll see genuine tax reform in this country.

Before looking at ‘who owns what’ from our representatives in Canberra, remember that the Greens want to make big changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax. Apart from a 10% tax on our 150 billionaires, the Greens want to overhaul negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount.

Negative gearing gives property and stock investors an effective rebate on their tax bill for the losses they make when the income from an investment is less than the interest costs from borrowed funds that bankroll that investment. Meanwhile, if an investor holds that investment for over a year, the capital gain that’s taxed is halved, effectively reducing the tax bill and encouraging investors to hold the investment for at least 12 months to get the lower tax slug.

SBS reports that “as well as scrapping negative gearing discounts, the Greens policy would abolish the existing capital gains tax concession for more than one property”.

The report added that a “Parliamentary Budget Office analysis in June last year revealed that the tax revenue foregone as a result of these two concessions had risen from $6.7 billion in the 2014-15 financial year to $10.9 billion in the 2023-24 financial year. That figure is expected to be $12.3 billion in 2024-25”.

For property players, this election could see the Greens with a lot more clout if Labor needs them to rule effectively. Based on polls right now, Labor looks set to retain power. However, no one can be 100% sure about what Aussies do on election day, though Donald Trump madness and Medicare are apparently big issues helping Labor’s better polling.

Back to the addiction of property for our politicians and a SMH study of the register of members’ interests reveals:

1. 226federal Members of Parliament (MP) own a total of 459 properties across the country.
2. The average is two properties per MP.
3. Half of the MPs own two properties.
4. 137 MPs have at least two properties.
5. 69 MPs own only one property.
6. 21 MPs own no property!
7. Familywise, any MP could own more because Senators’ spouses don’t have to declare their holdings!
8. 70 of Labor’s 103 MPs (or 68%) own at least two properties.
9. 56.6% of Coalition MPs own multiple properties.
10. Peter Dutton has owned 26 properties over 35 years but now owns only a $2.1m farm and family home.
11. The PM owns a home in Sydney and an investment property worth $4.3m on the NSW Central Coast, which could help his tax refund.

Who are the big property players?

Coalition MPs Karen Andrews and Nola Marino own seven properties each, while Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke owns six properties. “A further seven MPs own five properties each – Labor’s Andrew Charlton, Louise Miller-Frost, Deb O’Neill and Catryna Bilyk and Coalition MPs Colin Boyce, Terry Young and Gavin Pearce,” the SMH informs us.

So, what can we conclude from all our politicians’ property plays? Try these things:

1. Our high-income tax focused system and compulsory super system, which takes 11.5% of workers’ wages, encourages owning an investment property for wealth and tax refund reasons.
2. The likelihood this Parliament would take away negative gearing and kill the 50% discount on the capital gains tax is unlikely. As former Treasurer and PM Paul Keating once said: “Always back self-interest – at least you know it’s trying’.”
3. They could do tax reform with a 15% GST, which would bring income tax cuts that could mean changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax, but I can’t see a leader who could pull that off!

However, I can’t see a current leader from either side that could sway Australian voters to cop a 15% GST for tax cuts that could come and go at the strike of a pen of a future government. Of course, any changes to negative gearing and the capital gains discount could be ‘grandfathered’, which means the current rules will apply to existing situations or investments, but future ones will operate under new rules.

While that’s a chance, it would generate a ‘politics of envy’ drama where young Australians would complain that oldies are getting it too good!

That’s why I say we’d need a really impressive leader with charisma to pull this kind of tax reform off. To date, I haven’t seen one in Canberra.