These principles are supported by robust and active parliaments through which the broad scope of executive government is authorised and held to account; as well as independent courts, an effective co-ordinating system of cabinet government, public service agencies based on sound structures and governance practices capable of providing quality policy advice, and a free press - or what these days might be called a "free media".

Avoiding embarrassments and the desire to pull the wool over eyes of citizens can test the commitment of political parties to democratic principles. The incentives for governments to not fess up to error or incompetence are strong and often they find it expedient to obfuscate, claim precedence in the dubious track records of opponents, blame innocent bystanders or tell fibs.

Such habits have been brought to an unattractive pitch by the ignorant, unprincipled sociopath the United States now has as its president.

While the Commonwealth government is a far cry from the Trump presidency, that's little comfort because in "the modern era" it seems as if the practice of government in the former has slipped to unseemly low levels. Certainly public confidence in government has slipped badly.

The decline in politics and public administration has many causes including the malign effects of modern broadcasting technology which has enabled its operators to become more intrusive and whose clamours politicians seem feel the need for instantaneous responses. So, the control of politics has too much come to dictate policy.

At this point the Morrison government enters at stage right, whose devotion to the principles of democratic government have not been as many might have hoped.

For example, it has:

In an especially egregious example of bad governance, the Morrison government had the secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet undertake an investigation into former Minister Bridget McKenzie. the report on which knocked her off on a technicality but gave her the all clear on the Auditor-General's most serious allegations, and notoriously refused to release the secretary's report for the fake reason that it was "cabinet in confidence".

The government has also created a mess of the Administrative Arrangements Order with consequences for cabinet operations - good luck with busting the congestion in the Infrastructure portfolio, which has nine ministers, including four in cabinet; and has been content to have journalists pursued and intimidated for dubious reasons.

While the Prime Minister and his colleagues often make the right noises - governing for all, strong standards of integrity and governance, respect for the public service and the like - their antics frequently shade these sentiments.

Further, the Prime Minister has said that "quiet Australians ... have won a great victory tonight [on the evening of last year's election] ... it's all about you".

He adds that he wants the "APS to have a laser-like focus on serving these quiet Australians". That is to say, he wants public servants to see their responsibilities from a political viewpoint.

He has also said that, "If you have a go in this country, you will get a go. There is a fair go for those who have a go", and "... we expect the APS to get on and deliver the government's agenda ... It is ministers who provide policy leadership and direction."

It's tempting to put these advertising jingles to one side but they're too often repeated not to be taken seriously.

The Prime Minister may equate "quiet Australians" with Sir Robert Menzies' "forgotten Australians" and John Howard's "battlers". The Menzies and Howard formulae are, however, unobjectionable. People who have been forgotten or who are battling deserve a leg up from the governments.

But "quiet Australians"? Who are they and why should they be given a special place in a government's favours given that many of them might not deserve or need it?

The Prime Minister is effectively saying that his government and public servants should keep a "laser-like focus" on "quiet Australians" who voted for the Coalition, with the implication that noisy ones will get the rough end of the pineapple. That's close to dishing out sports and other grants to political favourites.

And what about giving a "fair go for those who have a go"? This looks like an amended version of Joe Hockey's infamous "lifters v leaners" or "dole bludgers". A primary objective of governments should be to attend to the well-being of disadvantaged citizens who, for reasons outside of their control, may be unable to "have a go".

The "thinking" lurking behind the "fair go for those who have a go" is, presumably, what allows the government to leave the Newstart Allowance at such a cruelly inadequate level.

READ MORE:

Enough has been said about Morrison's downgrading the policy advising role of the public service, an irony given that he and too many of his ministers don't seem to be over-endowed with policy skill.

On top of that, the Prime Minister has knocked off recommendations from the Thodey report on the public service aimed at putting relations between ministers and the public service on a better footing and improving arrangements for the swarms of ministerial staff (hundreds more than in the UK) with which the government has surrounded itself.

Professor Tim Moore from the Swinburne University of Technology has noted the many complaints made by Coalition members about government in general attacking "property rights", "creating tax burdens for future generations", "regulating us to within an inch of our lives", being unable to do much to "advance society" while taking us down the "road to serfdom".

Such guff is not far away from the view that governments should just get out of the way and leave things to the perils of the "efficient market hypothesis" which the economist Robert Shiller has said is "one of the most remarkable errors in the history of economic thought."

Moore says that the Coalition member comments he cites may reflect a belief that the "best form of government action is inaction...aside from keeping in power and looking after one's mates." If so, that may be why the government's policy cupboard is so lightly stocked and why its response to crises such as the recent bushfires was so slow.

It's tempting to attribute the government's misfortunes to incompetence, but that is likely to be only part of the reason.

It's more likely things have been pushed off the rails by fundamentals in the government's approach to government.

Buttering up to "quiet Australians" and, by implication, dealing less generously with noisy ones. Giving a fair go to those who have a go but not fretting too much about those who can't. Piling on the secrecy and rebutting questions without answering them. Devaluing public service policy advice while promoting the place of ministerial staff, many of whom may be good at politics but lousy at policy. Thinking that government is more a part of the problem than the solution, to mangle an aphorism from former US president Ronald Reagan.

Sure, the Morrison government should tune up its competence, but it should also rethink its approach to government.

In particular, the Prime Minister should reflect on how tax and social security benefits administration is set up with laws setting out entitlements and obligations. Decisions about those obligations and entitlements are taken by authorities legally independent of ministers so they can be insulated from political favouritism.

Similar arrangements should apply to sports and other community grants. Until that's done citizens can reasonably suspect that such grants will continue to be infected by the taint of political mateship.

Is it any wonder that confidence in government is at such a low ebb and that taxpayers seem less willing to fork out when the system has become too slippery with the public interest?