Police, emergency services, doctors, nurses, retail outlets all keep going. And yet we have a strange illusion of relaxation and festivities. Ministers never really get a break. They may take formal leave and someone will be appointed as acting in their absence but that's not all it's cracked up to be.

The acting minister, depending on their relationship with the acting or actual prime minister may seek to step outside a caretaker role and make a name for themselves. You come back from leave and are left with whatever their bright idea was, or wasn't. More to the point it's your job and when something hits the fan you will be the one the media chase. My own experience was that finding a parliamentary secretary who would take responsibility for what they were responsible for was impossible so no chance with an acting minister.

When you return from leave it's back into knowing that the opposition, the media and even some colleagues are just hanging like vultures waiting for a stumble. The new year doesn't look like it is going to offer much in the way of light relief for any ministers. As the year draws to a close, some perceptions about the government seemed to have settled in. It is true they can change for the better. The point is they have to.

Here are a few problems they face.

The government seems unable to settle on a clear way of handling Peter Dutton. Quite why they think they should talk about him rather than policies that affect Australians is beyond me. It shows either he's got under their skin or worse that they've let their personal dislike of him become the issue. It isn't. We, the Australian people are. And we know it.

Immigration reforms may help in the longer term. A tick for that. But the government knew about the High Court case that ended up occasioning unsavoury immigration detainees being released into the community. The line "they (the public service) thought we'd win" as an explanation for not being fully ready for a loss just doesn't wash. A win would pose no risk to community safety, a loss certainly would and clearly did. If the public service was blasé about it there should be some movement at the station. But in the end the minister should have asked "And if we lose?" and ensured contingency plans were in place. That didn't happen effectively and the public will not forget it. Public safety is a key government responsibility.

Housing supply or lack thereof has unfairly hit the immigration debate. It's not that there isn't a fair debate about immigration levels, there always should be. Former Labor minister Mick Young once said that if you support immigration, to protect it, you will ensure that its makeup and volume stays within the levels of community acceptance.

But immigration isn't the key factor. The government has only itself to blame for not pinning the responsibility where it probably does lie, namely state and local governments. Sure Labor can't say "not our problem" but the role of state and territory governments should be front and centre of the debate. Labor has let their incompetence off Scott free and taken the blame. Why?

The Lerhmann defamation proceedings are not helping the government at all. The general public just can't understand why Higgins was simply given millions of dollars. They wonder why other claimants, like returned servicemen and women, go through the wringer and yet a few million goes to Ms Higgins uncontested. It may well turn out that the public believes Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown were the only people who actually tried to help Ms Higgins. That's the two people they remember Labor vilifying for an alleged cover up. Others seem to have just used her.

MORE AMANDA VANSTONE:

It's not simply public opinion that counts. The ministers involved in attacking Reynolds and Brown are dealing with public servants everyday. It was a public servant who told Reynolds' office that Higgins' story was not theirs to tell. It belonged to Higgins and no one else. If public servants decide Labor's pursuit of Reynolds and Brown was purely political and that Higgins, whilst apparently assisting them, was just grist to the mill it will be any ugly scenario. Public servants are very professional. Nothing needs to be be said. But my guess is those ministers will know, call it female intuition, that their standing in the eyes of many in the public service has fallen. That's ouch for any minister.

The referendum was also damaging. Labor refused to allow Australians to have the choice of voting "yes" for constitutional recognition but "no" to the Voice. That annoyed a lot of voters including Labor and swinging voters. It was an attempt to bully Australians by virtue of the question design. Sadly that meant some Indigenous Australians would interpret a "no" vote as a rejection of them. A split question would have told them the truth and given them a ringing endorsement from Australian voters. Labor gave them the negative and deprived them of that positive endorsement. Cruel and stupid are adjectives that come to mind.

On climate and energy the government narrative is a mess. Shutting down energy supplies here and yet exporting them to China, the worst CO2 emitter, needs a narrative. As does no to nuclear power when Japan (and others) are opting for clean energy and yet we say no, but yes to nuclear subs.

So after ministers have a few days off over Christmas, it's back to the grindstone. Getting on with whatever business is at hand in their portfolio is always first order of the day. Then they have to figure out how to repair the damage done by this ugly list of largely own goals. The third task is to make Australians believe the government cares more about Australians than it does about itself. It is a hard road ahead.