A General and Grounded Theory of Free and Frank Advice

1/7/2023

The thesis examines the nature, importance, and future of free and frank advice in Aotearoa New Zealand. It explores how officials and ministers navigate their advisory relationships within an increasingly complex governance environment. The core question it addresses is: what constitutes free and frank advice, why does it matter, and how can we strengthen its role in public administration?

To answer this, the thesis draws on a broad theoretical foundation. It begins with Westminster traditions and principal-agent theory, which explain the structural relationships between elected officials and bureaucrats. These foundational ideas are then expanded through contemporary theories of political agonism, network governance, and concepts that help us understand the tension between democracy and bureaucracy. These frameworks highlight the complexities of modern policymaking, particularly in balancing competing interests, distributing knowledge, and making informed decisions. Additionally, theories of trust and the literature on Te Tiriti o Waitangi provide essential perspectives on the role of accountability, legitimacy, and indigenous governance within Cabinet decision-making in Aotearoa New Zealand.

The research employs a mixed-methods approach. Q methodology is used alongside elite interviews conducted with the āta approach. This combination captures the perspectives of current and former senior civil servants, ministers, and special advisers on the role of free and frank advice. The findings reveal six key perspectives. First, free and frank advice is an enduring constitutional feature, but it changes depending on its context. Second, ministers do not just receive advice—they actively shape it. Third, free and frank advice inherently involves conflict, but this conflict is constructive, necessary, and productive. Fourth, free and frank advice has a temporal dimension. This means its strictly non-political nature depends on when and how it is given. Fifth, it is a dynamic voice that operates within strict regulatory and institutional boundaries. Finally, it fundamentally depends on high-quality policy analysis.

One of the most significant findings from the elite interviews is that the timing of free and frank advice plays a crucial role in its effectiveness. This insight is further developed in the Q methodology analysis. It highlights how public servants must navigate institutional structures, network relationships, and individual agency. The interplay between these factors leads to the concept of strategic voice deployment. This refers to the deliberate and skilful decisions public servants make about when, how, and through what channels they express their advisory voice. It includes choices about timing, tone, format, and forum. These choices become especially important when delivering advice on sensitive or politically charged issues.

For example, a senior official advising on a politically controversial policy must weigh multiple factors. If the advice is given too early, it may be dismissed as premature. If it is delayed, it may be overtaken by events. The format—whether a formal report, a private conversation, or a public statement—also shapes how the advice is received. Strategic voice deployment, therefore, requires more than expertise; it demands an acute awareness of political context, institutional norms, and ministerial expectations.

Strategic voice deployment represents an original contribution to the literature on public policy and public administration. It shifts the focus beyond evidence quality and communication skills. Instead, it highlights the strategic choices that advisers make when delivering advice. It recognises that effective advice-giving is not simply about what is said. It is also about deciding when to speak up, when to remain silent, which battles to prioritise, and how to frame advice to make the most impact while maintaining professional and constitutional integrity.

Crucially, strategic voice deployment is different from free speech or academic freedom. While it shares some elements with traditional concepts of employee voice and whistleblowing, it goes beyond them. It requires public servants to exercise sophisticated judgment. They must navigate the space between silence and outright dissent. Ministerial engagement is also key. Ministers are not just passive recipients of advice. They play an active role in regulating and shaping free and frank advice. Ministers influence whether advice is encouraged, marginalised, or discouraged, often through their reactions to previous advice. In simpler terms, strategic voice deployment is closer to gnōthi seauton (“know thyself”) than to the common belief that sunshine is the best disinfectant.

This thesis makes three key contributions. First, it develops an agonistic framework for understanding administrative advice-giving. This significantly extends existing public administration theory in Aotearoa New Zealand. Second, it combines the āta approach with elite interviews and demonstrates the value of Q methodology in capturing subjective perspectives on governance. Third, it provides evidence-based recommendations for strengthening free and frank advice in contemporary governance.

For instance, one recommendation focuses on improving training for public servants to develop their capacity for strategic voice deployment. Another calls for clearer institutional guidelines that support advisory independence while recognising political realities. The research concludes that while free and frank advice remains essential to democratic governance, it needs to be reconceptualised for modern conditions. It proposes practical steps to improve advisory practices, strengthen institutional support, and develop the capabilities needed for effective advice-giving. These findings have significant implications for public service reform, ministerial-official relationships, and the broader functioning of democratic administration in an era of network governance and political polarisation.

Keywords: Free and frank advice, agonistic democracy, public administration, Q methodology, network governance, policy advisory systems, public and civil service reform.