Advice is just that, advice. It's not an instruction. The words of Energy and Resource Minister Megan Woods at select committee yesterday, as she defended why she chose to disagree with elements of the official advice on the oil and gas block offers decision.

There were a lot of ministers appearing before select committees yesterday being quizzed on their Budget spending, and policy direction. And the main take away from several of those appearances, was a shared theme of Ministers seeming to cherry pick the advice they want to take on board, or reject, or even bother reading.

Megan Woods was asked if she'd had advice on whether ending future oil and gas exploration would in fact lower global greenhouse gas emissions. Her answer, "the advice did not say that. But I disagreed with it". She said that the advice, in her opinion, was out-dated. It was based on the idea that our production would simply move to China.

But she said that argument doesn't hold water anymore, because China's cap and trade approach would mean any transfer of production would be a substitution, not an addition. She said that the advice didn't take into account the reality of how the world is changing.

Then there was Police Minister Stuart Nash answering to his policy of striving to get 1800 new front line police over three years. He was asked whether he'd considered Treasury's advice on potentially phasing in those extra police over five years instead. He got it. But he didn't bother reading it. He said his coalition government has a promise, so anything suggesting they won't keep it, he's not even interested in seeing. See no evil, read no evil.

The conversation then turned to the conflicting advice from government departments on what impact these extra cops on the beat will have on our ever rising prison muster. Corrections and Justice are flagging that this boost to police could see a boost of between 600 to 900 prisoners. But the Police department says that won't happen.

And the Police Minister is going with the minority view, saying that 'on the balance of probabilities he's taken police advice over Justice and Corrections advice' and he 'absolutely believed' more police would reduce crime, not lead to more people being caught and imprisoned for crime.

While in another select committee room, Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter was flagging that the benefit cost ratio system used by NZTA is flawed when it comes to projects like light-rail in Auckland. She says it can't be relied on because it overstates the benefits of highway projects, and systematically understates the benefits of rail projects.

While it's true that advice is just advice, and not instruction, if you're so willing to disregard advice that doesn't suit your end goal, or that doesn't justify or vindicate a move you're going to make, why then be so hell-bent on seeking it in other areas?

Time and time again Ministers in this government have explained the plethora of working groups and expert advisory panels because 'they don't want to pretend they have the answers' and it seems they want the experts to tell them what to do. But in some cases, is it more that they want the experts to tell them what they want to hear. Or backup what they think they already know?