Labor’s 1.2 million home target runs into a problem: recent tax adjustments have altered the financial logic that drives what gets built. Developers now face a calculation where certain project types no longer clear the return threshold, while others remain viable. The gap between policy ambition and economic incentive is widening.
The issue is not political will or workforce capacity alone. It is that the projects needed to hit the target, mid-density infill, build-to-rent, affordable housing at scale, require specific margin structures to proceed. When tax settings change depreciation schedules, GST treatment on development input costs, or capital gains holding period rules, the return on those projects shifts. For categories already operating on thin margins, even small adjustments can push them below the line.
The arithmetic behind the stall
Development decisions hinge on projected net return after land cost, construction, holding costs, tax and sale. A typical mid-rise residential project in a capital city might target 15-18 per cent return on cost. Strip 2-3 percentage points through changed depreciation treatment or input cost increases not offset by output price growth, and the project moves from marginal to unviable.
Build-to-rent schemes, which rely on long-term cashflow rather than sale proceeds, are particularly sensitive. These projects depend on tax depreciation to offset early-year losses. Trim the depreciation schedule or extend the payback period, and the internal rate of return drops. Institutional capital has minimum return hurdles, typically 6-8 per cent real. Projects that no longer meet those benchmarks do not proceed, regardless of housing policy goals.
Affordable housing partnerships, often structured with concessional land or planning bonuses, already operate at the edge of commercial viability. Tax changes that reduce the value of those concessions, or increase the effective cost of compliance, push more projects into the ‘not worth it’ column.
Which projects are walking away
Mid-density infill (townhouses, low-rise apartments on urban fringe sites) is the first category to feel pressure. These projects suit smaller developers with limited balance sheet capacity. When margin shrinks, they cannot absorb the hit by spreading risk across a diversified portfolio. They simply stop buying sites.
Build-to-rent is next. Institutional investors have options, they can deploy capital into commercial property, infrastructure, offshore residential markets. Australian build-to-rent competes for that capital against global alternatives. Tax settings that tilt the playing field reduce Australia’s relative attractiveness. Projects pause or relocate.
Affordable housing partnerships face a different constraint: they rely on state and federal incentives layered together. Remove or reduce one layer, through tax changes that diminish the effective value of land concessions or planning bonuses, and the entire structure becomes uneconomic. Partnerships that looked viable eighteen months ago are being revisited.
The catch
- Labor’s 1.2 million home target requires ~240,000 new dwellings per year from 2024 to 2029
- Current annual delivery sits around 170,000-180,000 dwellings nationally
- Mid-density and build-to-rent were expected to close ~30 per cent of that gap
- Tax changes have reduced forecast returns on those project types by 2-4 percentage points in many feasibility models
The policy collision no one planned
Tax changes were introduced to address separate issues: bracket creep, revenue shortfalls, equity concerns around negative gearing and capital gains treatment. Housing supply was not the primary focus. The result is accidental but real: fiscal policy and housing policy are now working against each other.
Government has three options. One, adjust tax settings to restore development economics for priority housing types. Two, increase direct subsidies or planning concessions to offset the tax impact. Three, accept a lower effective target and revise the 1.2 million figure.
None are politically simple. Adjusting tax settings reopens debates around fairness and revenue. Increasing subsidies costs budget. Revising the target down means admitting the original figure was not realistic under current settings.
What determines whether this gets fixed
If the gap between target and delivery widens beyond 15-20 per cent by mid-2027, pressure to adjust policy settings will increase. State governments, who carry much of the political cost when housing supply lags, will push for federal coordination. Industry groups will present modelling showing which tax tweaks would restore viability to specific project types.
The risk is delay. Development projects have long lead times, zoning, design, approvals, construction. A project that does not start in 2026 will not deliver until 2028 or 2029. The later the policy adjustment, the harder it becomes to close the gap within the target window.
What happens if settings do not change
Supply undershoots the target by 150,000-200,000 dwellings by 2029. Prices in capital cities rise faster than wage growth. Rental vacancy rates stay below 2 per cent in most metros. Migration settings face political pressure as the primary lever left to reduce demand.
Developers shift capital toward commercial property, where tax settings remain more predictable, or offshore residential markets with clearer return profiles. Commercial property investment surges as tax changes redirect capital tracks that reallocation in real time.
Institutional capital that might have entered build-to-rent stays in infrastructure or offshore. Smaller developers, who lack the balance sheet to absorb margin compression, exit the market or consolidate. The number of active residential developers declines, reducing competition and future supply responsiveness.
Steps if this affects your decision
If you are a buyer waiting for supply to ease price pressure: do not assume delivery will hit the target. Plan for a scenario where supply growth stays below 200,000 dwellings per year through 2028. That implies continued price pressure in high-demand suburbs.
If you are an investor considering new-build apartments or townhouses: check the developer’s track record and financial position. Projects that looked viable two years ago are being reassessed. Completion risk is higher when margin is tight.
If you are tracking build-to-rent as a rental option: expect slower expansion than forecast. Institutional capital is re-evaluating return assumptions. Projects not yet underway may pause.
If you want the weekly signal, subscribe to Australian Property Review.
General info, not financial advice.
