A key takeaway from examining the national response to COVID is that an absence of trust would likely lead to a less cooperative public during a future pandemic.
At the start of the crisis, trust increased as fear was high and folks turned to well-known institutions and authority figures. Later, confidence decreased and frustration increased, and folks reacted against harsh measures.
The criticism has subsequently increased. In a 2024 poll, 54% said the federal government's approach on the time was appropriate. At the peak of the pandemic it was 80%. In 2024, 29% said the federal government overreacted; They were more more likely to rate the performance poorly than people before.
The review, conducted by an independent panel, highlighted the importance of higher communication and coordination when planning for future crises. But there are also just a few wrinkles that ought to be taken into consideration.
If we had one other pandemic in five years, people would actually be more immune to restrictions. But if the subsequent similar crisis were, say, 50 years later, the attitude of the general public on the time could be unclear. Confidence could rise and fall in an analogous pattern.
The change in opinion will not be surprising. Looking back, memories of the threat are fading somewhat – because Australia has done well overall – while memories of the restrictions (a few of which were clearly excessive) have gotten more outstanding.
The pandemic's rise in public trust was, as a consequence of exceptional circumstances, a blip in a long-term decline. This decline is a serious, insoluble problem in our democracy, as in lots of other countries.
One needs to be very optimistic to expect a revival of confidence within the foreseeable future. But if it continues to fall away, the foundations of our political institutions and our society will falter much more.
In the United States, Donald Trump massively attacked people's trust within the electoral system after he lost the 2020 presidential election. There are fears he would do the identical if he loses next week.
Fortunately, confidence in election management in Australia stays rock solid. However, there may be increasing concern concerning the corrosive impact of misinformation and disinformation in political debate, in addition to distrust of proposals to curb it.
The polarization in our media is a much paler version of what we see within the US, but trust remains to be eroding.
Mistrust and cynicism are closely related and might be fueled by relatively small things.
Australians have all the time been disrespectful to the political class. To some extent this might be positive whether it is a healthy skepticism. But when politicians develop into convinced that they serve themselves relatively than the common good, democracy is dragged down.
Independent Helen Haines wrote this week: “In a world of aggressive lobbying, jobs for cronies and acceptance of pork barrels, it is no surprise that trust in politics and government is waning in Australia.”
The furor over Anthony Albanese receiving Qantas upgrades arising from Joe Aston's just-released book The Chairman's Lounge may very well be considered small beer within the sense of a “scandal”.
But it creates distrust amongst voters about decision-making, whether justified or not. If big corporations treat politicians so well, are politicians more more likely to hearken to them?
After all, much of the cash donated to politics is driven by the need for access and influence. The same applies to prolonged privileges.
Integrity is crucial to trust. It failed the integrity test for Albanese to have accepted upgrades from Qantas, particularly for personal travel, when he was transport minister in the previous Labor government and oversaw the airline's regulation.
After days of evasion – he said it took a protracted time to examine his records – Albanese finally denied ever contacting then-Qantas boss Alan Joyce (or other executives) to request upgrades. But, one might ask, did having a network of friends mean he didn't need that?
Albanese is incredibly sensitive to the Qantas story, insisting to colleagues and others that it’s only a media drubbing.
The affair has shaken public confidence not only within the Prime Minister but to some extent more generally, as scrutiny also prolonged to travel favors received from opposition figures, including Peter Dutton, who requested use of Gina Rinehart's plane had.
Research from the COVID investigation showed that a wary public is demanding more transparency from its politicians.
It is paradoxical that we’ve seen an expansion of transparency mechanisms, but there remains to be the impression, and infrequently the fact, that things are deeply opaque.
In the upgrade affair, Albanese made a degree of listing every part in his parliamentary register of interests. But that doesn't get us to the center of the connection between a high-ranking politician and key people at an airline.
The same applies to the gambling industry. What went on behind the scenes to delay the federal government decision on gambling reform that was expected months ago? We can see gambling industry donations from the records, but not private influence.
The increasing professionalization of politics can have counteracted trust. It distances voters from politicians and provides more tools to control public opinion.
This may very well be one reason why “community candidates” have appealed their grassroots campaign. But the apparent shyness of Simon Holmes à Court, whose Climate 200 fund donates to a few of these candidates, about ending up on the Australian Financial Review's “hidden power” list has only drawn more attention to the backstory of cash and politics directed.
Concern for integrity and trust was considered one of the explanation why the Albanian government arrange the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) with great fanfare. Now a damning report released this week threatens to undermine public trust in that body.
This was followed by the NACC's decision not to analyze six people referred to it by the royal commission over Robodebt.
Robodebt had dealt a serious blow to people's trust in government and public services and it was vital that full accountability was sought.
NACC boss Paul Brereton delegated the choice on whether to launch an investigation to a different commissioner because he had an expert relationship with considered one of the people referred.
But in a damning report, the NACC inspector found Brereton had not adequately apologized.
“I have found that the NACC Commissioner's involvement in decision-making before, during and after the meeting on October 19, 2023 at which the substantive decision not to investigate the referrals was made was extensive,” the inspector concluded.
Brereton's response was that mistakes occur, an important thing is to correct them, and this will probably be done – by appointing an “eminent person” to contemplate whether the references ought to be investigated.
Both the federal government and the opposition express their confidence in Brereton. But Senator David Pocock believes Brereton should go. Anthony Whealy, a former judge and chairman of the Center for Public Integrity, told the ABC that while Brereton had not committed any criminal offense, he would resign in his place to guard the NACC's status.
Is this the worth of maintaining trust on this institution that ought to help restore trust?
image credit : theconversation.com