Free and Frank Advice: An inheritance, Westminster, Whitehall and an unresolved relationship

01/11/2025

I trace the four layers through which free and frank advice reached Aotearoa, from the Westminster frame and the Whitehall service to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Public Service Act 1912, and show how the conditions beneath each Westminster assumption have since shifted.

This is the third of twenty posts drawn from my doctoral thesis on free and frank advice in Aotearoa. In this post I follow the convention back through the constitutional and administrative inheritance that carried it here, and through the unresolved relationship with Te Tiriti o Waitangi on which that inheritance was laid.

Free and frank advice was inherited in Aotearoa, and it arrived with conditions attached that no local instrument had established, which is why I think the inheritance has to be understood before the statutes are. In this post I do three things: first, I look at the Westminster frame and the Whitehall service, the two imported layers that made candid advice possible; second, I look at the two local layers, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Public Service Act 1912, the first of which meant the imported inheritance reached ground already claimed; and third, I look at the five Westminster assumptions that still stand in Aotearoa, and at how the conditions beneath each have shifted while the convention itself has stayed the same.

The Westminster frame and the Whitehall service

The Westminster model came first and drew the frame, settling where authority sat, who answered to whom, and where a permanent public service stood in relation to a temporary executive drawn from Parliament and accountable to it (Rhodes & Weller, 2005). No single element of the model produces the obligation to advise candidly, because the obligation arises from the relation between a permanent service and a temporary executive, and it weakens whenever that relation is altered, whether or not anyone intends to alter the convention. Ministers hold the authority and officials the expertise, a formula easier to state than to work (Prebble, 2010), and in my reading the Westminster model says little about free and frank advice directly, and what it does is open the space in which free and frank advice becomes possible, first as a convention and eventually as a statutory principle.

The Whitehall tradition then supplied what the frame could not, a career service recruited by competitive examination and advanced on merit, set out in the Northcote-Trevelyan Report of 1854 as a replacement for patronage, and carried through to the Public Service Act 1912 (Northcote & Trevelyan, 1854; G. Scott, 2001). Merit and tenure gave officials a basis for professional judgement beyond the reach of partisan interest, and security of place made it safer to speak candidly, and the public service bargain names that exchange, in which officials trade loyalty, competence and discretion for tenure and trust (Hood & Lodge, 2006). For free and frank advice, though, I think the weightier inheritance is the Haldane Report, which the local literature has seldom given its due.

The Haldane Report of 1918 recast the tie between minister and official as a single and indivisible relationship, resting on the premise that good government depends on the continuous acquisition of knowledge, which sits with the officials who stay while ministers pass through (Haldane, 1918). Officials gained proximity to the minister and advancement free of patronage, and in return gave honest counsel, unwelcome counsel included, in confidence and in safety (Richards & Smith, 2016). The distinction I draw is between a capacity and its exercise, because merit and tenure make it possible for an official to form an independent view, while whether that view is ever put to a minister depends on the relationship in which the two of them work, and it is that protected relationship the convention governs.

Ground already claimed, and the 1912 bargain

The third layer is local and constitutional, and it troubles any simple story of transplant, because for most of the twentieth century the orthodox account read 1840 as a cession, with the Crown acquiring sovereignty and the inheritance following as of right. That reading has given way, and after long hearings the Waitangi Tribunal found in 2014 that the rangatira who signed Te Tiriti kept their sovereignty, agreeing to share power with the Governor and granting the Crown the right to make laws in return for active protection of their interests and their tino rangatiratanga (Waitangi Tribunal, 2014). Reading the English text in its own colonial setting reaches a similar place, that the framers of 1840 intended Māori and Crown authority to coexist (Fletcher, 2022), and the Tribunal’s later reports show the Crown soon overstepping that agreement, proclaiming sovereignty on its own account and imposing institutions that passed tikanga by (Waitangi Tribunal, 2023, 2025). The Crown’s power became real and lasting, and what remains open is the footing on which it rests.

The Westminster and Whitehall inheritance was therefore received onto contested ground, and this was never papa nullius, because Papatūānuku was already present, with land, authority, tikanga and relationship already ordered before the Crown’s institutions were laid across them (Royal, 2007). The negotiated relationship soon gave way to what has been called the “colonial Anglo-settler state” (McHugh, 1996, p. 513), in which the Westminster model supplied the means of majoritarian rule and the Whitehall tradition supplied bureaucratic capacity, and in the land wars, in confiscation and in laws that turned collective Māori authority into individual title, the civil service became an instrument of that state. Māori met that process as agents within it, and Iwi, Hapū, marae and rūnanga resisted in the courts, on the land and in diplomacy, adapting institutions of their own and of others to endure, and the contest between the reach of the settler state and a Māori world it absorbed only in part is still running (Mutu, 2019; M. S. R. Palmer & Knight, 2022). In my view cession is the wrong word for what the record shows, which is authority asserted, resisted, partly imposed and never wholly conceded, a relation still being conducted, and that unfinished relation is the footing on which both imported inheritances rest.

The fourth layer, local and administrative, was the Public Service Act 1912, which marked out a professional, politically neutral career service recruited on merit and took appointment out of ministers’ hands by vesting it in an independent central authority (Prebble, 2010; G. Scott, 2001). The political executive denied itself the right to employ in return for a duty of service to the Government of the day and to the government in waiting, and the officials formed within that bargain understood themselves as keepers of continuity and impartial expertise (Eichbaum & Shaw, 2005). The arrangement carried an egalitarian logic in its telling, and in its working the service was an elite of its own, with permanent heads appointed by their peers, and a markedly Pākehā elite, drawn from settler society and carrying the settler frame into the heart of the state (Nath & Allen, 2022). The ethic of impartial judgement that bridged Parliament and the service lasted for most of the century without ever being written down, and in my reading that is why its later weakening was so difficult to observe and so easy to deny.

Five assumptions under altered conditions

The inheritance arrived as a connected set of assumptions, and each one still stands in Aotearoa in formal terms, since Parliament still legislates, an Opposition still waits, Cabinet still governs, ministers still answer to the House, and officials still advise (Rhodes & Weller, 2005). Each now works under conditions the century since 1912 has made more mediated, more contingent and more contested (M. S. R. Palmer & Knight, 2022). An assumption can survive as a description of the constitutional arrangement while ceasing to describe how authority is actually exercised, and I think it is in that gap that the conditions for free and frank advice are made or unmade.

Parliamentary sovereignty supposes a single final source of authority, and in Aotearoa more than one source stands at the centre it assumes to be single, so that free and frank advice is given under conditions carrying more than one source of authority even where the doctrine recognises only one. The alternation of government is no longer settled in one place, since the first election under proportional representation in 1996 returned a Parliament no single party could command, and government formation has become an extended bargain among party leaders. Executive government no longer describes a single governing body, since coalition agreements, public dissent under agree-to-disagree provisions, and officials advising parties not yet in government are now ordinary practice (Boston & Bullock, 2009; Prebble, 2010). In each case officials still advise, and in my reading they now advise within a more crowded and more negotiated executive than the inherited model assumed.

Ministerial accountability survives in form while the material Parliament needs to exercise it has thinned, and the Auditor-General named the scattering of performance information across agencies in 2008 and again in 2021, with little change between the two reports (Office of the Auditor-General, 2008, 2021). The independent public service no longer rests on tenure alone, because chief executives hold office on fixed-term agreements whose performance terms ministers help set, and ministerial advisers now form “a third element interposing itself into Westminster’s bilateral monopoly” (Eichbaum & Shaw, 2007b, p. 453). The protection free and frank advice once drew from tenure has, as I read it, become something the statute must supply.

The advisory relationship is seldom named among the formal assumptions of the Westminster model, and yet it depends on all of them. The Haldane bond assumed two parties deliberating as one, and in Aotearoa consultants, contractors, academics, industry representatives, Te Ao Māori institutions and non-state providers now hold a standing place in policy work, while the no surprises expectation shapes when and how advice is given (Cabinet Office, 2023). The indivisibility of minister and official has been judged a convenient myth whose time is up, and the idea of a protected space for candour still persists in practice (Richards & Smith, 2016). Two things carry forward from this inheritance, in my view: the convention was inherited and never designed here, and the conditions beneath it have altered while the convention has not, so the statutes I turn to next were legislating for an obligation whose supporting arrangements had already begun to move.

In the next post I turn to the Official Information Act 1982, where free and frank advice made its first statutory appearance in Aotearoa, as an interest protected from disclosure.

References

Boston, J., & Bullock, D. (2009). Experiments in executive government under MMP in New Zealand: Contrasting approaches to multi-party government. New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law, 7(1), 39–75.

Cabinet Office. (2023). Cabinet manual 2023. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Eichbaum, C., & Shaw, R. (2005). Is Westminster dead in Wellington? Ministerial advisers in the New Zealand executive [Conference paper].

Eichbaum, C., & Shaw, R. (2007b). Ministerial advisers and the politics of policy-making: Bureaucratic permanence and popular control. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(4), 453–467.

Fletcher, N. (2022). The English text of the Treaty of Waitangi. Bridget Williams Books.

Haldane, R. B. (1918). Report of the Machinery of Government Committee. Ministry of Reconstruction.

Hood, C., & Lodge, M. (2006). The politics of public service bargains: Reward, competency, loyalty—and blame. Oxford University Press.

McHugh, P. G. (1996). Constitutional voices. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 26(3), 499–530.

Mutu, M. (2019). The Treaty claims settlement process in New Zealand and its impact on Maori. Land, 8(10), Article 152.

Nath, N., & Allen, B. (2022). Settler colonial socialization in public sector work: Moving from privilege to complicity. Studies in Social Justice, 16(1), 200–223.

Northcote, S. H., & Trevelyan, C. E. (1854). Report on the organisation of the permanent civil service.

Office of the Auditor-General. (2008). The Auditor-General’s observations on the quality of performance reporting [Discussion paper].

Office of the Auditor-General. (2021). Building a stronger public accountability system for New Zealanders (B.29[21h]).

Palmer, M. S. R., & Knight, D. R. (2022). The constitution of New Zealand: A contextual analysis (3rd ed.). Hart Publishing.

Prebble, M. (2010). With respect: Parliamentarians, officials, and judges too. Institute of Policy Studies.

Rhodes, R. A. W., & Weller, P. (2005). Westminster transplanted and Westminster implanted: Exploring political change. In H. Patapan, J. Wanna, & P. Weller (Eds.), Westminster legacies: Democracy and responsible government in Asia and the Pacific (pp. 1–12). University of New South Wales Press.

Richards, D., & Smith, M. J. (2016). The Westminster model and the “indivisibility of the political and administrative elite”: A convenient myth whose time is up? Governance, 29(4), 499–516.

Royal, T. A. C. (2007). Papatuanuku – the land. In Te Ara: The encyclopedia of New Zealand. Ministry for Culture and Heritage. https://teara.govt.nz/en/papatuanuku-the-land

Scott, G. (2001). Public management in New Zealand: Lessons and challenges. New Zealand Business Roundtable.

Waitangi Tribunal. (2014). He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti / The Declaration and the Treaty: The report on stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki inquiry (Wai 1040). Legislation Direct.

Waitangi Tribunal. (2023). Tino rangatiratanga me te kawanatanga: The report on stage 2 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki inquiry (Wai 1040; Part 1). Legislation Direct.

Waitangi Tribunal. (2025). Tino rangatiratanga me te kawanatanga: The report on stage 2 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki inquiry (Wai 1040; Part 2). Legislation Direct.