That is a claim that will be tested over the next three years, not by victories in economic policy or so-called bread and butter issues, but by resolution of values-laden issues that have been in the too-hard basket for some time. These issues are the immovable objects of politics. That basket now includes not just climate action and energy policy, but freedom of religion and Indigenous constitutional recognition. The latter two are not usually grouped together but they have a lot in common.

The too-hard basket contains issues that have stumped many past governments and prime ministers. To succeed, Morrison will have to prove himself the irresistible force of modern politics. He will need to demonstrate the steely determination to be right, which Erik Jensen describes as one of his defining characteristics in his new Quarterly Essay, The Prosperity Gospel.

Such too-hot-to-handle issues have several characteristics. For starters they have a long and troubled history.

Freedom of religious belief is an issue that was debated in the 1890s, leading to s.116 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which allows for freedom from and for religion. In 1988, an unsuccessful attempt was made to give it stronger constitutional teeth through a referendum. Since then anti-discrimination legislation has included exemptions for faith-based institutions. The Rudd government instituted a national inquiry into human rights, including religious rights, chaired by Father Frank Brennan.

The modern face of religious freedom controversy has a sexuality and gender framework, which came to a head during the successful 2017 same sex marriage postal survey, which led to appropriate legislation. One consequential outcome, in order to respond to the concerns from some faith-based organisations that they were seriously disrespected during that debate, was the Ruddock Review of religious freedom, chaired by Liberal Party elder Philip Ruddock.

MORE POLITICAL COMMENT:

That review reported last March, but its release was delayed unduly by the Turnbull government and then the Morrison government failed to push any solution through the Parliament prior to the election. The issue has now been further inflamed by the Israel Folau sacking affair, which has given it a personal focus previously lacking. The government now claims belatedly that resolution is a priority. Morrison's personal identity as a prominent person of faith demands that he become the prime minister to find such a resolution.

The Indigenous recognition issue has an equally long history since Indigenous Australians were written out of the Commonwealth Constitution in the 1890s and over the past two decades has had an even higher profile. Leaders like Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd have staked their reputations on resolving the issue but even federal bipartisanship has not been enough to get it to a referendum.

Indigenous recognition is tied to national identity even more than religious freedom, and its failure to be resolved, in the face of widespread community sentiment backing reform, has been a national shame. Energetic community organisation has failed too. Different mechanisms have come and gone, most recently the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which was rejected peremptorily by Malcolm Turnbull and misrepresented as wanting to enshrine a third chamber of parliament for Indigenous Australians in the Constitution.

Now Morrison has appointed the first Indigenous Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, and given him a brief to bring the matter to fruition. Wyatt's admittedly modest aspirations have been greeted by personal acclaim, but also by hard-headed scepticism and continued opposition from conservatives. There is now a lot riding for him on his personal ministerial journey even if Morrison himself could survive a debacle.

The second element of the too-hard character of these issues is that they are intensely personal and divisive. They go right to the heart of the identity and beliefs of some Australians. This has long been the case for Indigenous Australians, the most disrespected minority in Australian society. Now certain Australian faith communities claim that they are equally disrespected in public life, despite their majority status.

Freedom of religion is now, unlike in the past, an intrinsic part of the philosophical base of the Liberal Party. It is certainly a major element in the philosophical divisions within that party. It has also been taken up energetically by the evangelical wing of Australian Christianity and some elements of non-Christian faith communities. This includes prominent advocacy organisations like the Australian Christian Lobby.

This means that it is an issue on which powerful community organisations and leaders demand to be consulted and are quick to claim to be slighted if they are not. It is also an issue, like Indigenous constitutional recognition, in which compromise and consensus is difficult to achieve. For some on different sides, like religious and LGBTQI leaders, it is a core issue.

These two issues, while similar in some ways, are also very different ideologically. Many conservatives in the community demand increased protections for religious freedoms but are vehemently opposed to the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians.

What the issues do have in common is that they are a test of our national credentials as a fair and just nation and we will be judged on the outcomes. So will the Prime Minister.