“Release the Lot!”

17/2/2025

“Release it,” says the Minister, pushing the report back across his desk. “All of it.”

The Chief Executive stares at the thick document – six months of analysis on prison reform.

“Minister, our advice is clear. The proposed changes carry significant risks.”

“Yes,” the Minister says, leaning back. “Your advice is clear, thorough, and I completely disagree with it. That’s exactly why the public should see it.”

The Chief Executive blinks.

After twenty years in the public service, this is new territory.

Ministers usually bury advice they disagree with, not champion its release.

“You want to publish advice that contradicts your policy?”

“Look,” the Minister says, tapping the report. “You’ve done your job. Solid analysis, clear warnings about implementation risks, alternative options. I’ve done my job too – considered your advice, weighed the politics, considered the jobs this create and made a different call. That’s democracy.”

“The media will have a field day,” the Chief Executive warns. “Opposition will say you’re ignoring expert advice.”

The Minister actually grins. “Of course they will. But here’s the thing – you’ll have to front this analysis. Defend it. Explain your reasoning. Just like I have to defend my decision. No more ministers taking all the heat while departments hide behind the official information act.”

“That’s… unusual.”

“It’s honest,” the Minister counters. “You think my reform plan is too ambitious. I think your caution would maintain a broken status quo. We can respectfully disagree. But let’s do it in the open.”

The Chief Executive looks down at the report again, seeing it differently now. Not as a political liability but as evidence of a robust democracy – where officials can give unwelcome advice, ministers can make tough calls, and the public gets to see the whole messy process.

“Besides,” the Minister adds softly, “next time I’m presented with free and frank advice, everyone will know I take it seriously. Even – especially – when I disagree with it.”

The Chief Executive nods slowly, already drafting media lines in his head. After all, if he believes in his department’s analysis, he should be willing to defend it. “I’ll start the proactive release process.”

“Good,” says the Minister. “And when the select committee calls, I expect you to argue your case just as vigorously as I’ll argue mine. But let me be clear, when Cabinet makes the decision, I expect you to implement it with enthusiasm. Am I being clear?”

They share a look of mutual respect – two parts of democracy working precisely as they should, even when they disagree. “Yes Minister, crystal clear” says the Chief Executive.

This scene of a Minister deliberately choosing to release contradictory advice captures the essence of what my PhD will reveal about free and frank advice in a modern post-colonial democracy.

Far from being a simple matter of officials speaking truth to power, free and frank advice is a sophisticated dance of transparency, disagreement, and mutual respect that ultimately strengthens democratic governance.

The Minister’s unexpected decision to publicise departmental opposition to his policy reveals how traditional understandings of free and frank advice are evolving in Aotearoa New Zealand.

This interaction – while fictional – shows that disagreement can be a source of democratic strength rather than institutional weakness.

It exemplifies the key findings that emerged across my PhD journey.

*Please note that this post is fictional. The stories shared are narratives used in workshops on free and frank advice and are drawn from my PhD research.