Abstract: My Phd

1/7/2023

My Phd puts the convention of free and frank advice under the microscope. Through an agonistic theoretical framework, the thesis examines the nature, importance, and future of free and frank advice in Aotearoa-New Zealand. It investigates how officials and ministers navigate their advisory relationships within an increasingly complex governance environment. It addresses the fundamental question: What constitutes free and frank advice, why it matters, and how can we get more of it?

Drawing on Mouffe and Honig’s theories of agonistic democracy, supplemented by Ostrom’s institutional analysis, Rhodes’ interpretive approach to governance, Hood, Mulgan and Matheson’s thinking on relationships between elected and unelected officials, and Eichbaum and Hill’s research into the role of political advisors, this thesis conceptualises free and frank advice as a form of legitimate democratic contestation in the context of political and administrative practice. Craft’s policy advisory system model, Moore’s strategic triangle and Cole’s work on officials working in political environments further enhance this theoretical framework, providing a comprehensive lens through which to examine contemporary advisory practices.

The research employs Q methodology, complemented by elite interviews, to capture the subjective viewpoints of current and former senior civil servants, ministers, and special advisers regarding free and frank advice. This mixed-methods approach reveals distinct perspectives on the nature of frank advice, its institutional enablers and barriers, and its role in democratic governance. The elite interviews identified five viewpoints on free and frank advice: in particular that it is an enduring and evolving constitutional feature; not just about officials – ministers have a role; necessarily in conflict, albeit a good conflict; not every day’ entirely non-political, but always based on high-quality advice; and a dynamic regulated voice – i.e., not set and forget.

The Q-study confirmed these five points while suggesting that free and frank advice is a complex interplay between institutional structures, network relationships, and individual agency. The Q-study also revealed how civil servants navigate the ‘purple zone’ between political and administrative spheres, managing multiple accountability relationships while maintaining professional independence through strategic voice deployment. The concept of strategic voice deployment is new and one of the main findings of this investigation.

Strategic voice deployment is the deliberate and skilful calibration of when, how, and through what channels public servants choose to exercise their advisory voice. It includes conscious decisions about timing, tone, format, and forum for delivering advice, particularly on sensitive or challenging issues. This concept recognises that effective advice-giving is not just about what is said but about the strategic choices made in delivery – including when to speak up when to remain silent, which battles to choose, and how to frame advice in ways that maximize its potential influence while maintaining professional and constitutional integrity. It is not free speech. Nor is it academic freedom. While it draws upon, it also extends beyond traditional employee voice and whistleblowing concepts. It emphasises the sophisticated judgment required to navigate the complex terrain between silence and outspoken dissent, acknowledging that effective public service advice requires not just courage to speak truth to power, but wisdom in how that truth is conveyed, together with the active participation of ministers as both audience and regulator.

This thesis makes three primary contributions. Theoretically, it develops an agonistic framework for understanding administrative advice-giving, significantly extending existing public administration theory on elected and unelected officials in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Methodologically, it demonstrates the value of Q methodology in understanding complex administrative relationships. Practically, it provides evidence-based recommendations for enhancing free and frank advice in contemporary governance contexts.

The research concludes that free and frank advice remains vital to democratic governance but requires reconceptualisation for modern conditions. It suggests interventions to strengthen advisory practices, enhance institutional support, and develop individual capabilities for effective advice-giving. These findings have significant implications for civil service reform, ministerial-official relationships, and 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