Key Takeaways
- Australia’s housing crisis forces many migrants, like Indonesian social‑work student Rosa Dhayan, to endure long commutes and high rents.
- The federal budget curtails negative gearing for existing homes and phases out the 50 % capital‑gains‑tax (CGT) discount from July 2027, aiming to boost home‑ownership and slow price growth.
- Migrant investors generally support the reforms despite personal financial impacts, citing the need for a fairer market.
- Some property owners plan to hold onto assets, while others see regional areas as still attractive for investment.
- The changes may increase competition for first‑home buyers among new migrants and long‑term residents.
- Overall, the policy seeks to balance investor incentives with affordable housing, but its success will depend on supply response and market dynamics.
Rosa Dhayan’s daily struggle with commuting and rent
Rosa Dhayan, a 26‑year‑old Indonesian masters student in social work, lives in Mount Gravatt, a southern Brisbane suburb where rent remains relatively affordable. She shares a two‑bedroom unit with her partner, splitting the $450 weekly cost for rent and utilities. To attend classes at Southern Cross University’s Gold Coast campus she endures a two‑hour public‑transport trip each way, and her job at Brisbane Airport adds another 30‑minute drive on the opposite side of the city. The long commute strains her time and energy, yet she worries that the new housing policy could push rental prices even higher and reduce the availability of affordable rentals, further jeopardising her already tight budget.
Overview of the federal budget’s housing tax reforms
In Tuesday’s budget the government announced a major overhaul of tax incentives for property investors. Negative gearing—allowing investors to deduct rental‑property losses from their taxable income—will be barred for existing homes purchased after the budget night. From July 2027 the flat 50 % CGT discount on assets held longer than 12 months will be abolished. Officials estimate that 75,000 additional Australians could become home owners as a result, while house‑price growth should decelerate, eventually easing rental pressures. The reforms are framed as a response to intergenerational inequality and the broader cost‑of‑living crisis.
Migrant narratives often absent from housing debate
Public discourse frequently portrays migrants as drivers of rising rents and home‑price inflation, yet their own views on policy solutions are rarely heard. The ABC reached out to several members of Australia’s diaspora communities to gauge reactions to the budget’s housing measures. Their testimonies reveal a nuanced picture: many migrants acknowledge the hardship caused by unaffordable housing, recognize the need for reform, and are willing to accept personal financial trade‑offs for a more equitable market.
Zilong Qiao’s perspective: accepting losses for reform
Zilong Qiao, an entrepreneur who migrated from northern China 17 years ago, owns an investment property in Melbourne’s western beachside suburb of Altona. He told the ABC that he intends to sell the property before the CGT discount disappears next year, anticipating “significant” losses. Despite the prospective financial hit, Qiao voiced strong support for the reforms, arguing that ordinary wages can no longer sustain a decent standard of living or enable home ownership. He described the Australian dream as “almost impossible to realise” under current conditions and welcomed the budget as a closely watched response to widespread cost‑of‑living anxiety.
Mary Sunarho’s stance: unlikely to sell despite changes
Mary Sunarho, an Indonesian‑born Australian citizen living in Sydney, has held two Brisbane investment properties since 2012. She said she would be less inclined to sell under the new rules because the reduced CGT discount would lower her profit potential. Sunarho noted that the negative‑gearing change would not affect her, as she and her husband focus on positively geared investments. She advocated for a housing policy that balances investor incentives with tenants’ ability to access affordable, decent accommodation, warning that overly restrictive measures could deter needed supply.
Rico Halim’s view: undeterred investor eyeing regional markets
Rico Halim, a permanent‑resident Indonesian property agent based in Leichhardt, inner‑west Sydney, expressed surprise at the budget’s negative‑gearing and CGT adjustments but said they would not deter his investment plans. He cautioned that excessive erosion of investor confidence could curb new‑housing construction and push rents upward, harming renters. Halim intends to purchase an investment property in a more affordable regional NSW centre—such as Orange, Mudgee or Dubbo—where strong rental yields and growth prospects remain attractive. He believes the core strategy of targeting high‑growth areas with solid rental performance will stay unchanged.
Darwin Wirawan’s warning: increased competition for first‑home buyers
Darwin Wirawan, a Victorian architect, anticipates that the tax reforms will enable more migrants to purchase their first homes. However, he warns that this will intensify competition between newly arrived migrants and longer‑term residents seeking entry into the market. Wirawan observes that his clientele has become increasingly diverse over his two‑decade career, now including Chinese, Cambodian, Vietnamese and other skilled‑migrant groups. He suggests that while the policy may broaden home‑ownership opportunities, it could also heighten bidding pressure on scarce starter homes.
Lukas Pradhana and Jennie Liu: implications for future investment and tax planning
Lukas Pradhana, who migrated from Indonesia and bought a family home in Adelaide’s Plympton suburb two years ago, said the current budget does not affect him directly but could influence future investment decisions. If he chooses to acquire another property under the new regime, he would lose the ability to deduct losses via negative gearing and face higher CGT, reducing the tax appeal of investment. From an investor’s standpoint he deems the changes “not very good,” yet he acknowledges that would‑be owner‑occupiers may benefit from a less frenzied market. Pradhana supplements his mortgage by hosting international students through a South Australian government program, earning at least $360 weekly per student. Jennie Liu, a Melbourne‑based CPA serving the Chinese‑Australian community, noted that the reforms were unsurprising but would compel many clients to revisit their tax structures, as the previously generous concessions for higher‑income earners have been trimmed.
Conclusion: balancing investor incentives with affordability
The budget’s housing reforms represent a decisive shift: curtailing longstanding tax breaks for property investors while attempting to expand home‑ownership and ease rental pressures. Migrant voices—students, workers, and investors—reveal both personal costs and broad support for a fairer system. While some investors may hold back or pivot to regional markets, others see the changes as necessary to restore balance between supply and demand. The ultimate impact will hinge on whether reduced investor incentives spur sufficient new construction to keep rents in check, and whether first‑home buyers—especially newly arrived migrants—can successfully navigate a still‑competitive market. Policymakers will need to monitor these dynamics closely and adjust measures to ensure that the goal of affordable, accessible housing is met without unintentionally choking the investment pipeline that fuels housing supply.