John Warhurst | The conundrum of a popular government attracting serious criticisms

This situation is somewhat of a conundrum. Will the popularity and community approval slowly mute the criticisms, or will they steadily drag down the government's popularity and eventually lead to its defeat in two years' time?

There is a third alternative and that is that this state of tension will continue unabated, either because it is the perennial problem of progressive governments or because it is a problem for all governments in the 21st century.

In this third scenario trust in all governments has been seriously depleted, the two-party system is no longer fit for purpose, and the situation is made worse by the scale of the nation's problems and the impossibility of balancing revenue and expenditure.

The government's popularity flows both from general appreciation of its performance and the widespread acceptance that the prime minister and most of his ministers are doing a good job. They are also engaging with the community through clear communication.

But the government's popularity is undoubtedly amplified by the lack of a real alternative government or prime minister. Both the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Opposition are languishing.

But, simultaneously, both the immediate and longer-term budget problems for the government are enormous if it is to meet community expectations.

The immediate problems focus on meeting cost of living pressures on the most vulnerable. Too many Australians are living in poverty, in part because government welfare payments fall far short of basic living requirements.

Some of these payments, to address unemployment, single parenting, and gender discrimination, for instance, should have been lifted to acceptable levels years ago by previous governments.

The longer-term problems, many of them made clearer by royal commissions and research reports, rest on the fact that whole sections of the community, including the aged, the disabled, veterans, Indigenous peoples, those with mental health problems, and those in regional and remote areas, have living standards and levels of government assistance that fall far short of what is acceptable. There are huge calls on future government spending and a looming short fall in revenue.

The saying that 'if you change the government, you change the country' has never been completely accurate. It is either only partly true or true only to a limited extent.

The saying is certainly not true for a first-term government. All governments inherit legacies; the nature of government is as much about continuity as change. The status quo is powerful. Many things are not directly in the hands of the government anyway.

MORE JOHN WARHURST:

This government inherited two large legacies which surely trouble the responsible ministers and make the Opposition smile.

The first are the legislated $250 billion stage three tax cuts. They sit like a dead weight within the future budget estimates. Not only do they offend progressive critics by being disproportionately middle- and upper-class welfare, but their huge size prevents other potential spending.

To drop them now would be a broken promise, but the objective case to do so is persuasive. They hamstring Treasurer Jim Chalmers.

The second legacy is the AUKUS defence and security agreement with the United States and the United Kingdom, and the consequent huge contract to build and buy nuclear submarines. This package too both offends progressive critics and has huge consequences for alternative budget expenditure.

It has embroiled the Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, and the Defence Minister, Richard Marles, in controversy not just with critics on the Left, but with Labor luminaries like former Prime Minister, Paul Keating.

The second set of dilemmas for the government revolves around calls by critics to justify actions by their immediate rather than their structural impact. This can be seen in the long-running discussions about the Indigenous Voice to Parliament and the current reaction to the government's plans to re-set the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA).

Critics can easily put the government on the defensive by focussing discussion unrealistically on whether the refurbished RBA will quickly lead to lower interest rates and/or whether the Voice will quickly 'close the gap' in living standards and life experience between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

The third set of dilemmas relates to the tension for any government between boldness and pragmatism. When the government tries to defend itself by claiming that 'you can't do everything at once' critics retort that you certainly can do just that if a government is brave enough and has a vision for the future.

There is some truth in both views. The middle ground involves setting out a long-term vision, but staging the steps taken towards that long-term vision. An incremental approach, on climate action for instance, is not necessarily conservative, but the steps forward must be clear.

One approach to reconcile reform and pragmatism is to announce changes, as the government has done with its superannuation reforms, which will only come into effect after the next election.

This approach to managing the tension between popularity and criticism is an attractive one. Expect further government reforms to be announced in this way. They then come with a new mandate.

Taken to its logical extent this approach must make the government think about an early election. While it retains its popularity it must be very tempting to go back to the people between May and December 2024 rather than in May 2025.