Anthony Albanese’s political standing has taken another hit, with a new Resolve Political Monitor showing a sharp loss of trust among voters after Labor reversed its election position on negative gearing and capital gains tax.

The survey, conducted for Nine newspapers between September 6 and 12 and involving 2,250 voters, found 23 per cent said they had lost trust in the Prime Minister because of promises broken in the May budget. Another 34 per cent said they already did not trust him before the budget reversal, while 26 per cent said they still trusted him.

The finding is politically damaging because the government’s housing tax changes are not being rejected outright by the public. Instead, the poll suggests many voters are separating the substance of the policy from the way it was introduced. A majority still supports the goal of lower house prices, but a significant share appears to believe the government broke a clear commitment to get there.

Asked about the political effect of the broken promises, 41 per cent said they were now less likely to vote Labor, compared with 20 per cent who said they were more likely to do so. The remaining 39 per cent said the change had made no difference or they were unsure.

That gap points to a problem deeper than a routine argument over tax design. Albanese has spent much of his leadership presenting himself as a steady, pragmatic figure who could be taken at his word. The Resolve figures suggest that reputation has been weakened at the same time Labor is trying to sell one of the most significant tax and housing reform packages of its second term.

The promises Labor changed

Before the election, Labor repeatedly ruled out changing negative gearing and the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount. The government reversed that position in the 2026–27 budget, arguing that housing affordability had deteriorated to the point where existing settings could no longer be defended.

From July 1, 2027, negative gearing for residential property will generally be limited to new builds. Existing investments held before the budget announcement are protected, while people who buy established homes after budget night will no longer be able to deduct rental losses against unrelated income such as wages. Those losses can still be carried forward and used against future residential property income.

The government is also replacing the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with inflation-based indexation and a minimum 30 per cent tax rate on real gains from July 2027. New-build investors will have a choice between the existing discount and the new system.

Labor’s stated aim is to tilt investment away from bidding up the price of existing homes and towards new supply. Treasury says the package is designed to support more first-home buyers and increase the incentive to invest in newly constructed housing.

Albanese has openly acknowledged the reversal. In interviews after the budget he said the government had changed its position because young Australians were being locked out of home ownership and because previous housing measures had not been enough.

That candour has not prevented the political damage. Voters are being asked to accept that circumstances changed enough to justify breaking an explicit commitment, and the latest poll indicates many have not accepted that argument.

Voters still want cheaper housing

The most striking feature of the Resolve findings is that the government’s trust problem sits alongside continuing support for the policy objective. Fifty-nine per cent of respondents backed lower house prices, while only 9 per cent opposed them and about 30 per cent were neutral or undecided.

That matters because it suggests the backlash is not simply a revolt by property investors or homeowners against falling prices. There is broad public recognition that housing affordability has become a major economic and generational problem.

For younger Australians, the gap between incomes and home prices has widened dramatically over the past two decades. High rents, larger deposits and higher mortgage repayments have made ownership more difficult even for households with stable employment.

For existing homeowners, however, falling prices can weaken household wealth and create anxiety for people who bought recently or borrowed heavily. For investors, the changes affect the tax treatment of future purchases and capital gains. Housing reform therefore creates a complex mix of winners, losers and uncertain long-term effects.

Labor is betting that the public will ultimately judge the reforms by whether they improve access to housing, not by the promises that were broken to introduce them. The Resolve poll suggests that bet is far from settled.

A wider economic credibility problem

The trust findings come as voters are also expressing concern about the government’s economic management. Separate results from the same Resolve survey showed 74 per cent were concerned about federal debt, while almost half wanted government spending reduced.

Labor’s primary vote was recorded at 28 per cent, with One Nation close behind on 27 per cent and the Coalition on 24 per cent. Those figures underline how fragmented the electorate has become and why a loss of trust can be especially dangerous.

Voters unhappy with Labor are no longer moving automatically to the Coalition. One Nation is competing aggressively for people who feel the major parties have failed on housing, migration, cost of living and government spending.

That creates a different political environment from the traditional two-party contest. A voter who concludes that Albanese broke his word can register that dissatisfaction in several directions, making it harder for Labor to predict where lost support will go.

It also means the Coalition cannot simply rely on Labor’s difficulties. The opposition still has to persuade voters that it offers a credible alternative rather than merely a protest against the government.

Why trust is difficult to rebuild

Governments sometimes have legitimate reasons to abandon earlier positions. Economic conditions change, crises emerge and policy settings that once appeared defensible can become harder to justify. A government that refuses to adapt simply to avoid the accusation of a broken promise can create problems of its own.

But political trust works differently from policy analysis. Voters may understand why a government changed its mind and still conclude that an election promise should have meant more.

That is the dilemma facing Albanese. If the housing reforms eventually increase supply, improve affordability and help more people buy homes, the government will argue the reversal was worth the political cost. If the reforms fail to deliver visible benefits, the broken promise will become much harder to defend.

The timing also matters. Labor made the change early enough in the term to give the policy time to operate before the next election, but the memory of the reversal is likely to remain a line of attack for both the Coalition and One Nation.

Every future assurance from the Prime Minister can now be tested against the negative gearing and capital gains tax reversal. That is why trust can be more politically damaging than a temporary fall in approval. A poor poll can recover quickly; doubt about whether a leader’s word can be relied upon tends to attach itself to later controversies.

The next test is delivery

Labor cannot reverse the trust problem simply by repeating that the housing crisis required action. The most effective answer will be evidence that the reforms are producing results.

That means new housing supply, a credible path for first-home buyers and a broader sense that the tax system is becoming fairer without creating severe unintended consequences in the rental market or construction sector.

The government will also need to explain the reforms in practical terms. Grandfathering protects existing investment decisions, while the new rules are aimed primarily at future purchases and gains. Those details are important because the politics can easily collapse into a simpler claim that Labor has launched a retrospective attack on property owners, which is not what the legislation does.

For Albanese personally, however, the central issue is now less technical. The latest Resolve poll indicates that a sizeable group of Australians believe he spent part of his credibility to deliver the housing tax changes.

The government may still win the argument that the reforms are necessary. Winning back trust will require something harder: convincing voters that the benefits were substantial enough to justify breaking a promise they clearly remember.