Some of the criticisms of Scott Morrison and Gladys Berejiklian are similar, but others are quite different. Some explicitly argue that mistakes have been made. Others go deeper and criticise the natural instincts and ethics of the government leader. The latter are the more damaging if they are correct.

Among the criticisms of the federal government's handling of the evacuation is that it took too long to begin the process after the earlier closure of the Australian embassy in Kabul. It could have been a failure of execution, based on either poor intelligence about the time left to act before the country fell to the Taliban or complacency at the ministerial or senior bureaucratic level despite intelligence suggesting the need for urgency.

Without having inside knowledge, it is impossible to say. The government stands by its actions and timetable. The critics are unconvinced.

Compare this with the NSW government's record on handling the Delta outbreak in Sydney. Critics, including some other state premiers, argue NSW failed to act swiftly enough to impose a strict lockdown. Instead, it took an incremental approach which kept Sydney citizens relatively free. Then, as the rate of infection spread, it slowly took a tougher and tougher approach, culminating in the recent statewide lockdowns and curfews in the most affected local government areas.

This approach may have been led by government ministers or it may have been based on advice from health experts, including the Chief Health Officer, and perhaps the police. It may have been the correct approach, or it may have been mistaken, whatever its origins.

Once again, without inside knowledge of bureaucratic-ministerial relations and relevant advice it is impossible to say. Once again, the government stands by its actions and timetable. Once again, the critics are unconvinced.

In the NSW case, there is no questioning of the ethics and morality of the government's actions. If it has made mistakes, the consequences are severe and may indicate a failure of leadership. But mistakes and failures don't indicate a lack of ethics or morality.

There are, however, other criticisms of the federal government relating to the evacuations from Afghanistan which do go to matters of ethics and morality, including the allegations of a lack of compassion and generosity towards those who wish to flee the country, and those who have fled the country in recent years and now live in Australia under temporary protection visas.

Some of these criticisms may concern a lack of urgency and poor policy choices, but they largely relate to the extremely small size of the promised intake, whether a floor or a ceiling, being set at 3000 Afghans (Canada, a comparable country, has offered 20,000 places) and to the unwillingness to grant citizenship to those Afghans already in Australia. Instead, they have been told only that they will not be sent back to Afghanistan in the present circumstances.

Once again, we do not know the internal ministerial and bureaucratic policy discussions. We do know that Peter Dutton, the Defence Minister and, like Morrison, a former Immigration Minister, has raised security concerns, without any supporting evidence, about potential Afghan evacuees. Maybe these concerns - and contentious allegations about people smugglers - were influential in the internal calculus about both numbers and the status of existing refugees and asylum seekers in Australia. Once again, we may never know.

READ MORE:

But both these criticisms raise the stakes and suggest a lack of compassion and ethical standards. Lack of compassion is a far more serious failing in my view than a lack of judgment or a lack of leadership. Governments and political leaders should be held to the highest standards in this regard. Compassion and generosity should be instinctive and deeply ingrained. Perhaps they can be overruled by hard political judgment in internal discussions, but, if so, it still reflects badly on all concerned.

What other factors are at play in the decisions of both the NSW and federal governments? Well, they have in common the fact that they will both face the voters before too long.

What do the voters think? Do they distinguish between different types of government failings?

The other big difference between the NSW government's response to the current outbreak of the Delta variant of the pandemic and the federal government's approach to the evacuation of Australian citizens and those who have worked with us in Afghanistan is that the former is close to home while the latter is far away.

Unfortunately, I suspect that pandemic control policy on the home front, whether involving honest mistakes or differences of opinion over what governments should do, will have a bigger impact on how people vote than what happens in a faraway place like Afghanistan. Berejiklian may have more to worry about than Morrison if she is seen to have failed to lock down hard enough. Morrison's conduct regarding the vaccine rollout also may cost him more dearly than any failure in Afghanistan.

Lack of generosity and compassion towards the vulnerable and unfortunate should be the gravest offence a government can commit. The mean-spirited approach of the Morrison government towards Afghan evacuees and refugees should cost it support. Whether it does will depend on whether Australian voters share my view and that of the government's critics.