Blog post

Inside the disconnect on housing

A critical blind spot has emerged in Australia’s housing debate. An analysis of news coverage compared to social discussion reveals that the conversation happening in the news media, a calm, ‘top-down’ discussion of financial strategy for existing homeowners, is dangerously disconnected from the raw, emotional reality unfolding on social media. 

While news outlets focus on interest rates and mortgage advice, the public conversation is a volatile, ‘bottom-up’ outcry over the lived experience of unaffordability and political frustration. This gap between the financial narrative and the public’s emotional reality represents a significant strategic risk for any organisation communicating in this space.

 In stark contrast, social media is having a “bottom-up” conversation, focusing on the personal pain points of cost, blame, and political frustration. It speaks from within the economy. At its heart, this conversation is driven by the raw, personal impact of an unaffordable market; users aren’t debating abstract forecasts, they’re lamenting the “exorbitant” cost of “multimillion dollar postage stamp sized tenancies.” This personal frustration then quickly seeks a target, splintering into direct political blame over specific tax policies and a deep-seated criticism of the planning bureaucracy, which is seen as a fundamental roadblock.

The core theme is the lived experience of exorbitant real estate prices, with users directly linking high property values to the unaffordability of everyday life and business. There is a strong undercurrent of blame directed at planners, councils, and perceived bureaucratic inefficiency as a primary driver of the housing shortage. The housing discussion is frequently and explicitly politicised, with users tying the crisis to taxation or economic policies.

Analysis shows a public belief that the government is prioritising private developers over vulnerable citizens. The revelation of stakeholder meetings behind closed doors to discuss ‘investment models’ for public housing towers for example has solidified a narrative of privatisation by stealth. The call for public housing is a direct demand for the government to re-assert its role as a protector of citizens, not a facilitator for private profit. Underpinning all of these solutions is a palpable sense of moral urgency, driven by the visible ‘human cost’ of the crisis. But this frustration is not passive. With calls for street resistance and construction unions to refuse demolition work, the message is clear: if these concrete actions are not taken, the conversation will move from online forums to the streets and worksites.

Monitoring and identifying these distinct ideological fault lines is crucial. It allows a communications team to understand the specific arguments and trigger words of each camp. Any government announcement will not be received by a single public, but will land on this fractured community and be interpreted through these pre-existing lenses.