Sir Peter Bowsher

Well, I think the onset of political advisers

to ministers as opposed to the old style, just public servants, if I can put it that way, means that there's a protection that's often put up around the minister so that nothing is divulged, which could be problematic.

And I think that expectations on some staff who are working in agencies are that they should not cause the agency any embarrassment.

and require further answers to have to be given.

So with all of that panoply of forces at work, there's a bit of a hesitation in being quite as free and as flexible as the act envisaged it would be.

If there's non-compliance with the Act, some might say, well, so what?

And I started off the interview with you by saying that I got close to asking the Solicitor General to prosecute Te Whata Ora, but that's a heck of a task.

And I think that where you have legislation requiring something to be done but no consequence for not doing it, it rather means that it falls down the place in the queue.

So I think work has got to be done and discussions got to occur about the nature of a coercive change that puts this front of radar

for chief executives and their staff who are responsible for making this Act work properly.

And at the moment, it's too far down the hierarchy.

The Solicitor-General would have initiated a charge.

It would go to court.

That's the only way in which it could be determined.

It's not clear, though, from the Act, the route that the Solicitor-General would take.

In other words, there's no penalty provision in the Act.

It would need to be a contempt or a declaration.

It's quite elusive as to try to put a label on what action and what basis.

You might ask, well, why did I go to the Solicitor General and ask for a prosecution to be initiated?

Because I was at the end of my tailor, and I thought that with the threat of that, it would produce a result, and it did so.