A recurring feature of the National–ACT–NZ First coalition has been pressing ahead with policy after officials, expert bodies or watchdogs warned against it — raising a question that cuts across the whole term: when should an elected government override the advice it pays for, and when does that tip into ignoring evidence, regulatory quality or the rule of law?

Every government rejects some advice; that is what ministers are elected to do. What critics point to here is a *pattern* of doing so on contested, rights-adjacent decisions, often after the advice is later revealed under the Official Information Act. Supporters reply that officials are not always right, that advice is only advice, and that the coalition has a democratic mandate to act.

This is a politically and constitutionally charged issue. Positions below are described neutrally and attributed to named people; readers should weigh them on the evidence, not on tone.

What's happening:

• Fishing-footage fine. Documents released under the OIA showed Fisheries Minister Shane Jones pushed a maximum $50,000 fine for leaking on-board camera footage, against Ministry of Justice advice that $5,000–$10,000 (aligned with Privacy Act penalties) was more appropriate and that exempting footage from the OIA risked breaching the Bill of Rights. Jones said he would like the fine higher.
• Treaty Principles Bill. The Waitangi Tribunal recommended the bill be abandoned (Aug 2024); ACT leader David Seymour pressed it to select committee anyway. It was voted down 112–11 at second reading in April 2025 — see Treaty Principles Bill.
• Regulatory Standards Act. Despite about 159,000 submissions with more than 98% opposed, and agency caveats, the bill passed its third reading on 13 Nov 2025 — see Repeal the Regulatory Standards Act and the broader red-tape agenda.
• Northland highway secrecy. Chief Ombudsman John Allen upheld the government's refusal to release the cost range and benefit–cost ratio for the Auckland-to-Whangārei highway; the last public BCR was 0.7 (benefits below costs) and 2023 estimates put one section at $2.9–3.75b.
• Climate litigation bar. Officials and law academic Vernon Rive advised against legislating to stop a live climate case mid-stream, which Rive called "constitutionally abhorrent"; the government proceeded.

Where the parties stand:

• NZ First — Shane Jones frames overriding officials as ministerial prerogative, arguing the footage fine deters misuse of sensitive information.
• ACT — David Seymour argues elected MPs, not unelected officials, should set policy direction, and that submission volumes do not equal public opinion (he has accused campaigns of "hijacking" the submission system).
• National — Chris Bishop (Transport) and Paul Goldsmith (Justice) defend acting on cost-confidentiality and "clarity around regulation" grounds.
• Critics: Labour and the Greens, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Office of the Ombudsman, and legal academics argue the pattern weakens evidence-based policy, regulatory quality and the rule of law. Connected concerns appear in the set-net/orca decision.

What to watch:

• Whether the fishing-footage fine is reduced at select committee, as Jones has signalled is possible.
• Whether the Northland highway BCR is ever published once the PPP deal is signed.
• Whether courts or future OIA releases reveal more instances of advice being set aside.
• Whether "advice ignored" becomes a 2026 election theme on governance and transparency.