With property prices rising in major cities and affordability pressures mounting, state tax reform is back in the spotlight as policymakers seek ways to improve housing mobility and market efficiency.
The debate over replacing stamp duty with a broad-based land tax is gaining momentum in Australia.
While the economic case for reform is strong, most state governments remain cautious about making such a significant change, said Nerida Conisbee (pictured), chief economist at Ray White.
Both New Zealand and the ACT have implemented this reform in different ways, providing valuable lessons for policymakers.
Stamp duty, a large upfront tax on property transactions, is widely seen as a barrier to residential mobility. It can cost tens of thousands of dollars each time someone moves, discouraging people from relocating even when their housing needs change.
This leads to inefficiencies, such as older residents staying in large homes while young families are squeezed into smaller spaces.
“When this significant upfront cost is removed, the property market functions more efficiently,” Conisbee said.
“Decisions become based on actual housing needs rather than tax implications. The effect is similar to improving traffic flow on a congested road – movement becomes more fluid and practical.”
A shift to land tax could also provide state governments with more stable and predictable revenue streams, as stamp duty receipts can fluctuate sharply with market cycles.
It would encourage property owners to make better use of their assets, potentially reducing vacancy rates and supporting smarter urban development by discouraging land speculation.
Transitioning to a land tax system would not be simple. It requires new administrative systems, regular property valuations, and processes for annual payments.
There are also concerns about the impact on retirees and others on fixed incomes, who may struggle to pay an annual land tax on homes that have appreciated in value.
“Regional variations create significant challenges for implementing a uniform land tax system,” Conisbee said. “A $2 million Sydney property might be equivalent to a $500,000 regional property, making uniform tax rates problematic.”
She added that farmers and residents in mining towns face unique issues due to fluctuating land values and limited cash flow.
Perhaps the biggest hurdle is public communication.
“While stamp duty is well understood, land tax represents a fundamental shift in property taxation that requires careful explanation,” Conisbee said. “Getting this message right is crucial to avoid community resistance.”
While a land tax could lower the barrier to homeownership by reducing upfront costs, its impact on affordability is debated. In supply-constrained markets, buyers may simply add the stamp duty savings to their offer price, pushing prices higher.
“We’ve already seen this effect with first-home buyer stamp duty concessions, where much of the savings ended up being absorbed into higher property prices rather than improving affordability,” Conisbee said.
Market dynamics could also change, with lower transaction costs potentially increasing both liquidity and price volatility. New Zealand’s experience during the pandemic, when rapid property trading led to dramatic price swings, highlights the risks of removing friction from the market.
New Zealand eliminated stamp duty in one swift move in 1999, aligning with broader economic reforms at the time.
The ACT, by contrast, is phasing out stamp duty over 20 years, running dual systems to ease the transition. Each approach has its pros and cons – New Zealand’s was fast but disruptive, while the ACT’s is more stable but administratively complex.
“The experiences of both regions suggest that successful implementation depends less on the speed of transition and more on the clarity of communication and the strength of administrative systems supporting the change,” Conisbee said.
Get the hottest and freshest mortgage news delivered right into your inbox. Subscribe now to our FREE daily newsletter.
