Back in the dark days of the failed arguments of the past some of us thought the entire notion of having a government department as an "advocate" of the environment was fundamentally flawed. The notion of any agency of state with (by definition) coercive powers acting as some kind of lawyer advocate (without compliance with the lawyers code of practice or registration etc) was essentially unsound. In a Westminster democracy, obviously bollocks.
Clearly we lost to the furry things and their anthropomorphic friends.
Now - BM - we find horror in the Nat Rad classes that these advocate guys are doing deals with power generators. What did you all expect - it's rational, its advocate behaviour, it's common (so the DoC staff tell us) and it's their job. All that goes with it is too - secrecy, stealth - the whole 9 yards. And you whingers who argued for it in the first place have all sorts of complaints about high country leases, forests, trees etc.... but you built the babe.
Sir Humphrey might not have got objectivity right all the time - nay even a decent majority of the time - but he knew where he was supposed to be headed.... and even our state agencies had a crack at objectivity.
Which at least allowed the Courts to work.....