A major takeout from the inquiry into the national response to COVID is that a lack of trust would likely mean a less cooperative public during a future pandemic.
Trust spiked early in the crisis, as fear ran high and people turned to known institutions and authority figures. Later, trust declined and frustrations rose, with people reacting against harsh measures.
Criticism has grown in retrospect. In a 2024 survey, 54% said the government’s handling at the time was appropriate. This had been 80% at the pandemic’s peak. By 2024, 29% said the government had overreacted; they were more likely to rate its performance poorly than were people earlier.
The review, by an independent panel, stressed the importance of better communication and coordination in planning for future crises. But a few wrinkles should also be considered.
If we had another pandemic in five years, people would indeed be more resistant to restrictions. But if the next similar crisis was, say, 50 years on, the then-public’s attitude would be anyone’s guess. Trust might surge and subside in a similar pattern.
The change in views is unsurprising. Looking back, memories of the threat fade somewhat – because overall Australia did well – while those of the restraints (some of them notable overreach) loom larger.
The pandemic’s lift in public trust was a blip – driven by extraordinary circumstances – in a long-term decline. This decline is a serious intractable problem in our democracy, as in many other countries.
You’d have to be super optimistic to expect a revival in trust in the foreseeable future. But if it continues to fall away, the foundations of our political institutions and our society will become shakier.
In the United States, Donald Trump made a huge assault on people’s trust in the electoral system after he lost the 2020 presidential election. There’d be fears he would do the same if he loses next week.
Thankfully, in Australia trust around election management remains absolutely solid. But there’s mounting concern about the corrosive effect of misinformation and disinformation in the political debate and, equally, distrust of proposals to curb these.
The polarisation in our media is a much paler version of what we see in the US, but is still wearing away at trust.
Distrust and cynicism are closely related, and can be fuelled by relatively small things.
Australians have always been disrespectful of the political class. To a degree this can be positive, if it is healthy scepticism. But if it descends into a belief politicians are more likely to serve themselves than serve the public good, that pulls democracy downwards.
Independent Helen Haines wrote this week: “in a world of aggressive lobbying, of jobs for mates, and acceptance of pork-barrelling, it is no surprise that in Australia there is diminishing trust in politics and governments”.
The furore over Anthony Albanese obtaining Qantas upgrades, arising from Joe Aston’s just-published The Chairman’s Lounge, might be seen as small beer, as “scandals” go.
But it raises suspicions, justified or not, in voters’ minds about decision-making. If big corporations are so cosy with politicians, are the politicians more likely to lend them sympathetic ears?
After all, the pursuit of access and influence is behind much of the money that’s donated to politics. The same applies to privileges extended.
Integrity is vital to trust. It didn’t pass the integrity test for Albanese to have accepted upgrades from Qantas, especially for personal travel, when he was transport minister in the former Labor government, overseeing regulation of the airline.
After dodging for days – he said it took a long time to check his records – Albanese finally denied ever contacting then Qantas chief Alan Joyce (or other executives) to request upgrades. But, it will be asked, did a mates network mean he didn’t need to?
Albanese is highly sensitive over the Qantas story, insisting to colleagues and others it is just a media beatup.
The affair has chipped away at public trust not just in the prime minister but, to an extent, more generally, as scrutiny stretched to travel largesse received by opposition figures, including Peter Dutton asking to use Gina Rinehart’s plane.
Research for the COVID inquiry showed a distrustful public wants more transparency from their politicians.
It’s a paradox that we’ve seen an expansion of mechanisms for transparency, yet there’s the perception, and often the reality, of things being deeply opaque.
In the upgrades affair, Albanese has made much of the fact he declared everything on his parliamentary register of interests. Yet that doesn’t get us to the core of the relationship between a senior politician and key people in an airline.
It’s the same with the gambling industry. What has been going on behind the scenes to delay the government’s decision on gambling reform, expected months ago? We can find from the record the donations the gambling industry gave, but not the influence exerted privately.
The increasing professionalisation of politics may have worked against trust. It distances voters from the politicians, and provides more tools for manipulating public opinion.
This may be one reason why “community candidates”, with their grassroots campaigning, have appealed. But the apparent shyness of Simon Holmes à Court, whose Climate 200 fund donates to some of these candidates, about finding himself on the Australian Financial Review’s “covert power” list only turned more attention to the backstory of money and politics.
Concern about integrity and trust was a driver of the Albanese government’s establishment, with much fanfare, of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). Now a scathing report released this week threatens to undermine public trust in that body.
It followed the NACC’s decision not to investigate six people referred to it by the royal commission into Robodebt.
Robodebt had delivered a massive blow to people’s trust in government and the public service, and it was vital full accountability was pursued.
The NACC head, Paul Brereton, delegated the decision-making on whether to open an investigation to another commissioner, because he’d had a professional relationship with one of the people referred.
But, in a damning report, the Inspector of the NACC found Brereton had not adequately excused himself.
“I found that the NACC Commissioner’s involvement in the decision-making was comprehensive, before, during and after the 19 October 2023 meeting at which the substantive decision was made not to investigate the referrals,” the Inspector concluded.
Brereton’s response has been to say mistakes happen, the important thing is to correct them, and this will be done – through the appointment of an “eminent person” to review whether the referrals should be investigated.
Both government and opposition are declaring faith in Brereton. But crossbench senator David Pocock argues Brereton should go. Anthony Whealy, former judge and chair of the Centre for Public Integrity, told the ABC that while Brereton hadn’t committed a sackable offence, in his shoes he would step down, to protect the NACC’s reputation.
Is that the price of maintaining trust in this institution that was supposed to help restore trust?
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
