The drive north from Sydney along the Pacific Highway is lined with towns that are potentially prey for One Nation. For years, handmade roadside signs disputed climate change and more recently objected to the voice to parliament referendum. Now they stridently support the angry party of despair.

The signs have given way near Port Macquarie to what can best be described as a homemade installation. It is a tribute to Ben Roberts-Smith, One Nation, and a foundation that declares Fire the Liars. A plinth is topped by the Australian flag – “Great Britain by night” as Jerry Seinfeld once described it.

A banner strung between trees hints at one of the grievances fuelling disappointment and anger in these communities. It says: CENTRELINK IS EVIL.

The electorate of Cowper, bookended by Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour, is one of the ‘least resilient’ communities in Australia, according to a Redbridge survey. If you didn’t know this, you may think the banner was a protest against social security payments. After all, the One Nation promise to slash government spending would not, if realised, leave welfare payments untouched.

Instead, the banner speaks to the frustration of people in an area with above average unemployment, more poverty, lower education, experience when trying to secure the benefits they are due.

Even the local National party MP has argued that the Centrelink payment for jobseekers is not enough and needs to be increased so fewer people are forced to live by their wits and in poverty.

Calling Centrelink evil speaks to the exasperation of completing endless, complicated forms, the hours spent on the phone to call centres and the fear that, as with robodebt and the automated aged care and disability assessment tools, the computer may just say no.

On an international scale, Australia is better than most nations in providing some income support to some of those who need it – the swift delivery of jobkeeper during the pandemic to most, if not all, who needed it, was exemplary. In some US states the pandemic was over before cheques arrived.

But it is far from perfect. Nearly 4 million Australians including 757,000 children live in poverty, with insecure food and housing and manifestly inadequate public support.

Those at the pointy end of disadvantage are likely to have fewer physical and emotional resources at hand, and many are worn down by the experience of applying for government support.

The frustration they feel is acute and personal. Security guards stand to attention at Services Australia offices – they may be necessary, but do not make anyone feel welcome. Even resilient people are often reduced to tears as they attempt to navigate a system that seems to imply they are cheats.

The American journalist Annie Lowrey documents in her book, The Time Tax, how the frustration with an overly bureaucratic system targets the most needy and eroded trust in government, and helped create the conditions that led to the election of Donald Trump. Despite promises to improve their lives, he has failed to deliver.

The US system with its more than 10,000 jurisdictions, countless support programs and endless complicated forms makes the Australian model look effective and responsive. But that is not how it feels to many of those who depend on it.

In both nations, politicians spend too much time talking about how much they are distributing, and not enough time explaining how to receive it.

The bamboozlingly big numbers used in political debate don’t always translate into actual dollars in the bank accounts of the neediest. Cutting government spending won’t make things better.

Polling group Redbridge’s recent survey on the resilience of Australian electorates assessed resilience not just in terms of incomes, but access to health services and the strength of community networks.

It paints a chilling picture of inequality – with the most resilient communities in the inner suburbs of the major cities where people have the money they need in an emergency, access to quality health resources, and strong social networks. In the outer suburbs, financial security shrinks and community networks are also weaker.

Cowper, where the Centrelink banner flies, is the sixth least resilient electorate in terms of health, followed by the nearby electorates of Paterson and Hunter. Paterson, two hours south, is the tenth least resilient electorate – in terms of health, finance and social relations – in the nation.

The tendency to dismiss One Nation as racist and inept, which it no doubt is, misses the point. People who feel left behind will inevitably lash out. The ubiquity of online propaganda feeds this and leads to some wacky conclusions.

One example, the Lowy Institute’s long-running survey of Australian attitudes to international leaders suggests that most Australians give the prime minister a net positive score, are sceptical but still positive about Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, but deeply distrustful of Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un.

One Nation voters, by contrast, put the prime minister between Putin and Kim, with a net negative score of 82.

Whatever Anthony Albanese’s shortcomings, to suggest that he is on par with these men is delusional.

At the launch of George Megalogenis’s book Three Shocks last month, Albanese disputed the suggestion that Labor was vulnerable to One Nation. He argued that there was always a rightwing rump in Australia.

Tactically that may be true, but real people are hurting and being egged on by dishonourable agents who sense their pain but have no capacity to address it.

Addressing inequity is the job of a progressive government, not treating the suffering like political playdough. Julianne Schultz is the author of The Idea of Australia