Introduction by Croakey: Housing-related stories are dominating the news cycle even more than usual, with two related Senate inquiries underway (here and here), and political and policy debates playing out in the media.
It is an important moment for journalists and the media to reflect upon how their framing of housing stories is often unhelpful and out of touch with community views, says communications expert Mark Chenery.
He also suggests that public health experts could do more to help reframe housing as essential health infrastructure, rather than it being seen as an investment opportunity.
“No health system can compensate for a housing system that leaves people without a safe, secure and affordable place to live,” he says.
Mark Chenery writes:
When the latest housing price data was released recently, much of the media coverage followed the same script.
Media outlets from the AFR to the ABC splashed headlines warning of a “slump”, “values flatlining”, “shaky ground” and “sinking”. Journalists wrote lengthy articles about “headwinds”, “lost momentum”, “weakness” and “losing steam”.
Through all the mixed metaphors, one thing was clear: this was bad news.
But for many Australians, housing affordability is one of the biggest issues facing the country. If that is true, then surely a slowing of house price growth, or even falling prices, should be reported as good news.
So what’s going on? How is it possible for journalists and editors across the country to be so completely tone-deaf to the national mood on housing?
The answer lies in framing.
The language used by journalists reflects a deeper way of thinking about housing that is deeply embedded in Australian culture, politics and policy: housing as an investment.
When housing is viewed primarily as an investment asset, rising prices are naturally interpreted as a sign of success. Falling prices become a sign of weakness. The focus shifts to market performance, investor confidence and asset values.
This framing is so familiar that it feels like common sense. Yet it is only one way of understanding housing.
It is also a frame that has helped normalise policies that prioritise housing’s role as an asset class over its role as a place to live. When housing is primarily a vehicle for wealth accumulation, then tax concessions like negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts, under-funding of public housing, and the lack of protections against dodgy landlords and the rise of short-term rentals, all make sense.
The consequences are now visible everywhere. Home ownership is becoming increasingly unattainable for many younger Australians. Rental stress is widespread. Homelessness is rising. Housing insecurity has become a defining feature of life for millions of people.
Yet much of our public conversation remains trapped within the same investment-focused frame.
Another way
What if we thought about housing differently?
Recently, Anika Legal, Better Renting and the Consumer Policy Research Centre released the Essential Homes report, which encourages policy-makers to think about renting as an essential service rather than a consumer product.
The same principle can be applied more broadly to housing itself.
Instead of viewing housing primarily as an investment, we could view it as essential infrastructure.
After all, housing plays a role in our lives that is far more similar to infrastructure than it is to a financial asset.
Like water systems, electricity networks and transport infrastructure, housing enables people to participate in society. It provides the foundation upon which people build healthy, secure and productive lives.
Imagine the media blatantly celebrating food prices going up, or bemoaning the fact that electricity prices have ‘stalled’.
You’d never see that because when we think of the provision of food, water, electricity – we frame these things as necessities and the systems that provide them as essential infrastructure. Their purpose is to provide a vital service to the community, not to maximise returns for owners and investors.
Housing deserves the same treatment.
When housing is viewed as an investment, policies that might place downward pressure on prices are politically risky (see current media debate about capital gains tax discounts and negative gearing). Meanwhile, public housing looks like a last (and ideally temporary) resort that should be as minimal as possible in order to not ‘distort’ the market.
When housing is viewed as infrastructure, on the other hand, different questions emerge. Do people have access to it? Is it affordable? Is it secure? Is the private market even capable of delivering on housing to this standard?
All of a sudden, how we measure success and failure of the system changes, as does who we think is responsible for making it happen. When we think of housing as infrastructure, government plays an obvious central role in guaranteeing quality, accessible housing for all.
This might sound like a radical idea. But the public doesn’t think so.
Public support
Research recently completed by Common Cause Australia found strong support for ambitious housing reforms. In a nationally representative survey of over 2,400 people:
- 72 percent agree the government should guarantee that everyone has a suitable home
- 74 percent agreed we should double the proportion of social housing versus private housing stock
- 69 percent agreed the government should create a publicly owned building company to create more and better homes faster.
And here’s the killer statistic that politicians and the media should be paying attention to:
- 81 percent of people would be happy for house prices to go down if it made housing for others more affordable – including 71 percent of homeowners and 73 percent of property investors.
These findings sit uneasily alongside a public conversation that assumes voters will necessarily resist any measure that could reduce house prices.
They suggest that the limits of what is considered politically feasible may be shaped less by public opinion than by the frames through which housing is discussed.
For public health advocates, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity.
The first task is simply to talk more about housing.
Public health has long recognised housing as a social determinant of health. Yet housing is too often treated as a specialist issue to be left to economists, planners and housing advocates.
The second task is to talk differently about housing.
Rather than describing housing merely as a ‘social determinant of health’, we need to frame it as essential health infrastructure.
What does that look like in practice? It means pointing out that secure housing is as essential to health as clean water, sanitation and transport.
Call housing “infrastructure” or even “health infrastructure”. Make analogies to other essential infrastructure and systems already linked to health – like food, water and sanitation. Point out how the energy and money people pour into unaffordable housing could be better spent living healthy lives.
No health system can compensate for a housing system that leaves people without a safe, secure and affordable place to live.
Changing media practices
Of course, we also need people in the media to change how they think about and report on housing.
This starts with diversifying their sources: to stop relying exclusively on real estate analysts and auctioneers to provide the primary narrative, and intentionally invite voices from social policy, public health, and urban planning to speak on what changes in house prices mean for the country. If housing is infrastructure, not just investments, then these are the people who will have useful thoughts to share.
Second, when interviewing political and industry figures, journalists need to push back on the reflexive assumption that high house prices are the only measure of success; and instead ask explicitly how specific housing policies impact community health and equity.
By consistently centring the human cost of housing alongside the financial data, journalists can dismantle the outdated narrative that has normalised insecurity for millions of Australians.
Finally, talk to renters, mortgagees and people struggling to find a roof over their heads. Ask them what they think of rising prices.
Again, resist the temptation to assume that people only have one way of thinking about housing. Homeowners might like the idea of sitting on a fortune, but they probably also worry about what unaffordable housing means for their kids and other people not as lucky as them. Heck, even ask them: would they be willing to see house prices drop if it meant housing was more affordable for everyone?
If we want policies that improve health, equity and wellbeing, we need to expand what people understand to be possible. That starts with changing how we think, talk and report on housing itself.
Author details
Mark Chenery, co-founder & Director of Common Cause Australia, is an internationally sought after communications expert, trainer and researcher who works with mission driven organisations to apply a values-based approach to community engagement. His background spans advertising and journalism, as well as leading the community engagement program of an international human rights organisation in Australia. Since co-founding Common Cause Australia in 2014, Mark has helped lead the organisation’s research, training and advisory work. He has trained thousands of campaigners, communicators and fundraisers across Australasia, North America and Europe in the science of values, framing and public persuasion. He specialises in combining discourse analysis, audience research and message testing to develop practical messaging strategies. His work has informed major campaigns and sector-wide shifts in Australia across diverse issues including racism, economic justice and the commercial determinants of health. His research and training have influenced how many leading mission driven organisations, peak bodies and government agencies communicate on complex social issues. He is known for translating detailed evidence into practical tools, including message guides, toolkits and training programs that support large-scale uptake across sectors. Declaration: Mark was on the steering committee for the Essential Homes report.
See Croakey’s archive of articles on health communications and on housing
Add Comment