The 12-Month Window.

There is a date now sitting on the horizon that will quietly reshape property investing in this country: 1 July 2027. After that date, the way most Australians have built wealth through property for the last two decades stops working the way it used to.

We wrote the full plain-English breakdown of the rules in our Budget 2026 explainer. This piece is the next question, and it is the one my clients keep asking me. Not "what are the rules", but "what does it actually do to the market, and what should I do about it in the next 12 months?"

I will be blunt with you, because that is what you come here for. I do not think Treasury has thought this through, and I do not think much of the industry commentary has either. The modelling that says this reform barely moves prices or rents assumes the new homes actually get built. Talk to anyone who swings a hammer for a living and you will hear a very different story. That gap, between the tidy model and the messy building site, is where the opportunity of the next 12 months sits.

Let me walk you through it, and I will show my working.

First, what actually changes

From 1 July 2027 two things happen at once. Negative gearing on residential property is limited to new builds. And the 50 percent capital gains tax discount that has applied since 1999 is replaced with an inflation-adjustment model plus a 30 percent minimum tax rate on gains.

The reform was announced on Budget night, 12 May 2026, and the enabling legislation passed Parliament and received assent in late June 2026. It is done, signed and locked in. The one thing that has not happened yet is the start date: the new rules do not apply until 1 July 2027. That gap is the window.

Here is the part that matters most for anyone still deciding what to buy. If you buy a new build, you keep full negative gearing after 2027, and when you sell you get to choose the better of the old 50 percent discount or the new inflation model. If you buy an established property after Budget night, from 1 July 2027 your rental losses can no longer be deducted against your salary. They can only be carried forward against future rental income or property capital gains.

Why negative gearing matters this much

It is worth being clear about why this is a big deal and not just an accounting footnote, because the whole investor calculation turns on it.

When a property is negatively geared, three parties effectively contribute to holding it. You put in your money. Your tenant pays rent. And the tax office hands back a slice of the shortfall by letting you offset the loss against your income. Three contributors carrying one asset.

Take negative gearing away and one of those three walks off the field. Now it is just you and your tenant covering the gap. For a lot of everyday investors, that missing third contributor is the difference between an investment they can comfortably hold and one they cannot.

This is why the reform will not simply make investors disappear. It will herd them. From 1 July 2027, the only way to keep that third contributor is to buy a new build. So that is where the next wave of investor money is being pointed, by design.

The idea looks clever on a whiteboard

I will give the government this much: on paper, the intention is defensible. Australia is deep in a housing shortage. We are short somewhere in the order of 232,000 homes over the last five years, which we broke down in The Housing Gap. Steering investor money toward building new dwellings instead of bidding up the existing ones is, in theory, supply-positive.

So the whiteboard version goes like this. Make new builds the only path to keep the tax breaks, and investors chase new builds. More new builds get commissioned, more homes get built, the shortage eases, and first home buyers get a look in. Neat. Tidy. The kind of thing that models beautifully in a Treasury spreadsheet.

Here is what that spreadsheet quietly assumes: that if you create demand for new homes, the new homes simply appear. That there is an army of tradies standing around waiting for the work. There isn't. And this is the part the modelling, and most of the "nothing to see here" commentary, glosses straight over.

There aren't enough trades. And it's getting worse

Here is where the plan meets the concrete. You can funnel all the investor demand you like toward new construction, but new construction needs carpenters, electricians, plumbers, bricklayers and concreters. And on that front, the numbers are already stretched thin before this policy adds a single extra buyer.

Now here is the part that gets less attention, and it is the one that should make you sit up. There has been a lot of noise lately about lifting skilled migration to help the economy. But look at where those skilled places actually go and very little of it is trades. In South Australia's March 2026 skilled-migration round, construction trades received just 23 invitations, against 97 for health professionals, and that gap has held round after round. The skilled intake is real. It is simply not pointed at the people who build houses. We are importing the demand for homes faster than we are importing anyone who can build them.

And the squeeze is already showing up in the price of labour. Trade prices rose 6.2 percent in the year to March 2024, and subcontractor rates have jumped by as much as a third after a first enterprise agreement. Replicating the same build six to twelve months later has been costing 5 to 9 percent more, and sometimes up to 20 percent more. That is the cost of building today, before this policy funnels a fresh wave of investors into the very same queue.

We have run this experiment before

If you want to know what happens when government policy suddenly pours demand into new construction faster than the trades can respond, you do not need a model. You just need to remember 2020.

The HomeBuilder grant did exactly that. It handed out incentives to build, demand surged, and the trades and materials simply could not keep up. The program's cost blew out from an expected $688 million to around $2 billion as everyone rushed in at once. And build prices followed.

I watched this happen up close in the market I know best. In the space of roughly two years, the minimum realistic price to build a home in some areas went from around $220,000 to closer to $400,000. Land followed. That was one grant program, in one stretch of time.

What is coming is arguably larger. HomeBuilder was a temporary handout. This is a permanent structural tax preference that makes new builds the only way for a new investor to keep negative gearing. That is a far more durable reason to build, applied to a trades workforce that is in worse shape now than it was in 2020.

Layer on the land side. National median lot prices rose 6.8 percent in a single year to mid-2025, and in Perth land jumped 29.8 percent. The Housing Industry Association's chief economist, Tim Reardon, has called the surge in land prices the key obstacle to Australia building its 1.2 million-home target. Now push more buyers toward that same new-build land and construction pipeline. It is not hard to see which way prices move.

We are not the only ones seeing it

And this is not just me beating a drum. The same signal is turning up right across the market.

realestate.com.au, the biggest property site in the country, ran a piece this month under the headline "Aussies warned to build now or face years locked out", warning that people planning to build face a narrow window before wait times and price tags become, in its own words, unlike anything Australians have seen. When the largest portal in the country is telling people to build now, this is not a fringe take any more.

Dr Andrew Wilson, one of the country's most experienced housing economists, has made the point on recent market commentary that the new-build carve-out will act as a genuine fillip to the apartment and new-development market, giving developers a clear tax differentiation to sell against established stock. More importantly, he keeps returning to the fundamental that underpins this whole piece: while Australia keeps building fewer homes than it needs, falling supply against rising demand only pushes prices one way, and there is no quick fix for it. He has also flagged that house-building costs are climbing again.

Buyer's advocates who spend every day in the market are seeing the same shift. Cate Bakos, one of the country's best-known buyer's agents, has said she expects strong growth in the new-build segment as this policy lands. That is precisely the demand concentration we are describing, and it is already being called out loud.

So where does that leave the window?

Put the pieces together:

• From 1 July 2027, new investors are funnelled almost exclusively toward new builds.
• The trades needed to deliver those new builds are already short, ageing and getting more expensive, and skilled migration is not filling the gap.
• Build and land costs are rising into that, not falling.
• The last time policy created this kind of rush, build prices ran up more than 20 percent a year.

Here is the piece most people miss. Right now the established market is actually soft in places. Sydney, Brisbane and Perth have been easing on higher interest rates and general uncertainty about these very changes. That looks like a reason to wait. We read it as the opposite. Soft and uncertain is exactly what the front edge of a window looks like, before the crowd works out where the tax system is now pointing them. Through late 2026 and into 2027, that message lands, demand concentrates on new builds, and the cost pressure we have laid out does the rest.

So our call is straightforward. The investors who position deliberately in the next 12 months are buying ahead of that wave rather than into the middle of it. This is not a signal to panic-buy anything with a roof. It is a reason to make a considered move now, with good advice and good numbers, rather than a reactive one in the middle of 2027 when everyone else has finally read the memo.

And then there is the rent trap

There is a second-order effect that gets almost no airtime, and it worries me more than the price story.

Restricting negative gearing to new builds gives a lot of investors a reason to sell their older, established investment properties. A good chunk of those homes get bought by owner-occupiers, not by other investors. Every one of those sales quietly deletes a home from the rental pool. And the rental pool is already stretched to breaking point. National vacancy is sitting near 1.3 percent, when a balanced market is 2.5 to 3.5 percent, and rents have climbed somewhere between roughly 5.7 and 8.1 percent in the past year depending on whose index you read. Cotality's own rental data describes vacancy this low as leaving renters with next to no bargaining power. Now start pulling rentals out of that pool and ask yourself which way rents move.

Now, in fairness, this is where the government and some economists tell you not to worry. The official modelling reckons rents would rise less than $2 a week. Respected economists like Saul Eslake and the Australia Institute's Matt Grudnoff make a genuinely clever point: when an investor sells to a renter who becomes an owner-occupier, you lose a rental and a renter at the same time, so the market should stay balanced. On a whiteboard, that is true.

But look at what that assumes. It assumes the two sides cancel out neatly, and it assumes new supply steps in to cover any gap. Here is the problem. New dwellings are only around 1.5 to 2 percent of total housing stock each year. If established rentals get sold off in any real number, new builds physically cannot backfill that pool fast enough, especially when, as we have just spent this whole article establishing, we cannot build them quickly or cheaply anyway. Tax something more and you get less of it. Less rental stock, into an already record-tight market, means renters paying more for longer. That is not a $2-a-week rounding error. In my read it is a squeeze, and it will bite hardest exactly where vacancy is already lowest.

What investors should actually do

None of this is a reason to rush blindly. It is a reason to think clearly while the window is open. Here is the practical map.

The bottom line

The government wanted to push investors toward building new homes. Fine goal. But they have aimed a wave of fresh demand at a trades workforce that is already short, ageing and getting dearer by the month, and history is blunt about what that combination does: it pushes build prices up, not down. We watched a smaller version of it play out after HomeBuilder, and the people who modelled this reform as barely moving prices or rents left that part out entirely. I do not think they understand their own plumbing.

Think back to HomeBuilder one last time. The people who moved early locked in the low prices. The ones who waited watched build and land costs climb month after month and paid tens of thousands more for the exact same house. Same home, same street, a very different price, decided almost entirely by when they acted. This time the pressure is bigger and it is permanent, not a temporary grant.

That is what makes the next 12 months matter. Not fear, and not hype. Just timing. The investors who understand the funnel now, while the window is open and the crowd has not yet turned up, are the ones most likely to be looking back on this period as the moment to have acted. The ones who wait for the change to be obvious will be competing for the same new builds, at the same time, at higher prices.

The window is open now. It closes on 30 June 2027.

Frequently asked questions