Geoff Parker: Fairness For All — Or A Particular Kind Of Fairness?

Chief Ombudsman John Allen's recent speech deserves careful scrutiny. Not simply because of where it was delivered, but because of who delivered it — and what he chose to say.

Koroneihana (Coronation) is a significant Māori and Tainui occasion centred on the Kīngitanga, the Māori King movement, bringing together people for cultural celebration, discussion and consideration of matters important to Māori.

There is nothing inherently improper about the Chief Ombudsman attending such an event. Public officials should be able to engage respectfully with different communities.

But the Chief Ombudsman is not an ordinary political commentator. He occupies an important independent constitutional office.

So when the holder of that office appears at a gathering centred on the Māori King movement, where Māori aspirations and greater political influence are openly part of the discussion, what he says deserves particular attention.

Allen praises the progress being made, highlights Māori economic and social achievements, speaks of the need for systemic change and ultimately invites the country's politicians to share that kaupapa - a particular set of principles, aspirations and priorities.

It is reasonable to ask whether this goes beyond cultural respect and into something closer to political advocacy.

Don't simply take my word for what he says. Listen for yourself.

WATCH THE VIDEO

Click to view

At one point Allen explains that on the wall of his Wellington office are three words:

“Fairness for all.”

That is a commendable principle — and an entirely appropriate one for the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman is an independent Officer of Parliament, not part of the Government. The office investigates complaints about public-sector agencies and provides an independent check on government administration.

Indeed, the law places an unusually clear obligation on the holder of the office. Section 10 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 requires an Ombudsman to swear an oath that he or she will “faithfully and impartially” perform the duties of the office.

So let's consider what Allen actually says.

He speaks of his respect for the Treaty of Waitangi, mana Māori and Te Ao Māori. He talks about Māori identity, Māori outcomes and systemic change.

He also discusses the disproportionate representation of Māori in prisons, youth justice and mental-health facilities.

At one point he says:

“We need to address that disproportionality.”

There is no dispute that the disproportionality exists.

The Ombudsman's August 2026 Insight Briefing reports that wāhine Māori accounted for 44% of Police proceedings, 66% of people remanded into custody and 71% of those sentenced to imprisonment. As at April 2026, wāhine Māori represented 65% of the female prison population and 69% of women on remand.

Those figures are serious. They deserve investigation and public scrutiny.

But there is an important distinction:

Disproportionate outcomes are not, by themselves, proof of discriminatory treatment.

The Ombudsman's own document is careful about this. It is an Insight Briefing, not a formal Ombudsman report. It contains an initial analysis, focuses on the system level and contains no new adverse findings concerning individual agencies. It identifies areas requiring further inquiry, investigation and scrutiny.

That is entirely legitimate work for the Ombudsman.

The issue arises when we move from investigating government administration to considering the broader political and cultural direction being advocated.

Towards the end of his speech, Allen says:

“And I challenge, or excite, or invite the politicians of our country to share that kaupapa — to share Queen Nawa's kaupapa: kotahitanga, economic empowerment, te ao and care for the people.”

Those are Allen's words.

And they deserve careful consideration.

An Ombudsman is not an elected politician. The office has no electoral mandate to determine the political or cultural direction of New Zealand.

Its authority comes from something different: independent and impartial scrutiny of the exercise of public power.

Former Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier described the Chief Ombudsman as “a key constitutional role” that provides “a vital check within our democratic system.”

There is nothing controversial about an Ombudsman identifying systemic problems, challenging government agencies or recommending changes where administration is found to be unfair, unreasonable or otherwise deficient.

That is the job.

But there is a distinction between saying:

“Our investigation has identified an administrative problem and here is what needs to change,”

and inviting elected politicians to:

“share that kaupapa.”

The first is oversight.

The second raises a legitimate question about advocacy.

And that brings us back to those three words on the wall:

Fairness for all. 

What does that actually mean?

Does it mean that every New Zealander is entitled to fair treatment by the state, regardless of ethnicity?

Or does it mean that government should pursue different policies and outcomes for different ethnic groups in order to achieve equity?

Those are not necessarily the same thing.

This is not an argument against investigating the very real problems identified in the criminal justice system.

Nor is it an argument against Māori culture or identity.

It is a question about institutional boundaries.

The Ombudsman is one of Parliament's constitutional watchdogs. The office needs to retain the confidence of the people it serves — including those who do not share any particular cultural or political worldview.

In his speech John Allen talks about Treaty relationships, Māori identity, systemic change and inviting politicians to share his kaupapa.

Ask yourself:

Is this the voice of an independent and impartial constitutional watchdog examining the administration of government — or is the office moving towards advocacy for a particular vision of how New Zealand should change?

That is not a trivial question.

It goes directly to what “fairness for all” should mean in a democracy.

And perhaps the most important point is this:

Fairness should be big enough to belong to everyone. 

Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.