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.

Geoff Parker: The Trojan Horse - Six Words Changing New Zealand

Six fashionable words — and what lies behind them

There are six Māori words appearing more and more in New Zealand government, councils, public agencies, law and political debate.

Geoff Parker: The River Is A Legal Person — But Who Makes The Law?

Hemopereki Simon's article about the Whanganui River makes one thing very clear: for him, giving the river legal personhood does not go nearly far enough.

That is because his argument is not really about the river. It is about who should have political and legal authority in New Zealand.

Geoff Parker: Kotahitanga — Unity, Or Division By Another Name?

Metiria Turei's argument (Otago Daily Times, 4/9/26) for kotahitanga (unity) begins with a proposition few New Zealanders would disagree with: that people should work together, respect one another and build a better country for everyone.

So far, so good.

But then comes the sleight of hand.

Geoff Parker: Ani O'Brien Is Right - This Isn't Co-Governance......

.....It's About Who Will Govern New Zealand.

There is a very important video doing the rounds from Ani O’Brien, and I think every New Zealander who cares about the future of our democracy should watch it.

Her message is remarkably simple.

It is about where political authority in New Zealand should ultimately reside.

Geoff Parker: Davina Smolders — When Dissent Becomes A Reason For Removal

The Far North District Council’s decision to remove Councillor Davina Smolders from its Te Kūaka Committee for Māori Strategic Relationships deserves considerably more scrutiny than it is likely to receive.

This is not simply a disagreement between councillors over Māori issues. It raises a much bigger question:

What happens to democracy when an elected councillor’s views become so inconvenient that the majority decides to remove her from a committee?

Geoff Parker: Were Māori A Sovereign Nation Before The Treaty?

The claim that Māori had already established a sovereign nation before the Treaty of Waitangi sounds straightforward enough. But the answer depends on what is meant by “sovereign” and “nation” and, most importantly, whether Māori — the people with whom the Treaty was signed — were politically united under any common authority.

There is no doubt that Māori exercised authority before 1840. Chiefs, hapū and iwi controlled their own people and territories, and the British Government recognised that reality.

Geoff Parker: Carwyn Jones misses the point - David Seymour is right

Who Makes New Zealand’s Laws — Parliament Or The Courts?

Carwyn Jones says ACT's new “One Law for All. One Future Together” policy appears to be an attempt to “re-litigate” the failed Treaty Principles Bill.

But that criticism misses the central point of David Seymour's proposal.

Geoff Parker: Alternative Facts And New Zealand's Selective History

There is something deeply ironic about accusations that the Coalition Government wants to teach New Zealand children “alternative facts” while some of those making the accusation present an extraordinarily selective version of our history.

The latest example in a letter to the Editor of the Waikato Times 22/8/26  is the claim that Māori had already established a sovereign nation before the Treaty of Waitangi and that British involvement simply destroyed an existing system of independent government.

The historical record is considerably more complicated.

Geoff Parker: Equality Is Not Racism, and Disagreement Is Not an Attack on Democracy

Metiria Turei's paywalled column in the Otago Daily Times 21/8/26, Hypocrisy and racism abounds in Parliament, is a familiar exercise in political inversion.

According to Turei, opposition to Māori electorates, criticism of Māori-specific policies, and attempts to restore the same democratic rules for all New Zealanders are evidence of hypocrisy, racism and an assault on constitutional democracy.

Geoff Parker: History Or Historical Interpretation?

Christopher Burns, a history teacher at Auckland University of Technology, has criticised the new Social Sciences curriculum, describing its presentation of New Zealand history as “sanitised” and calling for a more honest engagement with our past.

I agree that history should not be sanitised. But surely that principle must apply to all of our history.

Geoff Parker: The Littlewood Treaty - The Missing English Draft? Or A Back-translation?

A response to Barrie Davis's interpretation of the Littlewood document

Barrie Davis has recently written about the Littlewood document. His argument is difficult to pin down, but he ultimately appears to regard it not as the original final English draft prepared for translation into Māori, but as an English back-translation produced in connection with the Māori translation on 4 February 1840.

It is an interesting argument, but I am left with several questions.

But first what is not disputed?

Geoff Parker: Freshwater - Who Should Control New Zealand’s Water?

Author’s Note: This article represents the author's research and interpretation of the historical documents, legislation and court decisions cited below. The purpose is to contribute to the public debate over the constitutional future of New Zealand's freshwater resources. The conclusions expressed are the author's own and are not presented as legal advice. The primary sources are cited so that readers can examine the evidence for themselves and reach their own conclusions.

New Zealand is facing an important question that deserves far more public attention:

Who should ultimately control New Zealand’s freshwater resources?

Geoff Parker: If Official Status Doesn't Matter, Why Does It Matter?

Over the past week RNZ has published two articles criticising the English Language Act.

In the first, the Māori Language Commissioner argued that English never needed official recognition because it already dominates New Zealand society.

In the second, University of Waikato linguist Dr Julie Barbour went even further, describing English as a "predator language" that spread through conquest and colonialism, suggesting the legislation is "bizarre", unnecessary and simply reinforces English dominance.

Both arguments miss the point.

Geoff Parker: Who Should Govern New Zealand's Freshwater – Parliament or the Courts?

Open Letter To:

The Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, Prime Minister - Christopher.Luxon@parliament.govt.nz
The Hon Nicola Willis - Nicola.Willis@parliament.govt.nz
The Rt Hon David Seymour - Deputy Prime Minister - David.Seymour@parliament.govt.nz
The Hon Nicole McKee - Nicole.McKee@parliament.govt.nz
The Hon Paul Goldsmith - paul.goldsmith@parliament.govt.nz
The Hon Winston Peters - Winston.Peters@parliament.govt.nz
The Hon Shane Jones - Shane.Jones@parliament.govt.nz

Dear Prime Minister and Ministers,

New Zealand is awaiting what has been described as one of the most constitutionally significant court decisions in recent history.

The High Court's pending judgment in Tau v Attorney-General concerns Ngāi Tahu's claim that its rangatiratanga over freshwater was never extinguished and should be recognised through a new regime for the regulation, governance and allocation of freshwater resources.

Geoff Parker: Captain Cook Deserves History – Not Cherry-picked Propaganda

Professor Tony Ballantyne's article, New Ferry Names: Winston Calls it Woke, But Debating Cook’s Legacy is Nothing New, presents itself as a balanced examination of Captain James Cook's legacy. Yet the article follows a familiar pattern: it highlights every negative episode associated with Cook while giving little attention to his extraordinary achievements, the historical context of the eighteenth century, or the many positive assessments of his contribution made by generations of historians.

No serious historian claims Cook was perfect. He was an eighteenth-century Royal Navy officer operating in an era when encounters between European and Indigenous societies often involved fear, misunderstanding and sometimes violence. But judging him solely through the moral standards of the twenty-first century risks replacing historical analysis with modern political judgement.

Geoff Parker: Two Magic Words - "Treaty Obligations” - Or Simply Government Policy?

If you've listened to Ministers, government agencies and public officials over the past few years, you have probably noticed two words appearing with increasing frequency:

"Treaty obligations."

They are used to justify decisions involving public assets, public funding, governance arrangements, consultation requirements and government policy.

Geoff Parker: Culture Is Not Democracy - Equal Citizenship Is

Professor Dominic O'Sullivan argues that abolishing Mana Whakahono ā Rohe Agreements "undermines democracy". In reality, the opposite is true.

No one is arguing that Māori culture should be excluded from public life. Every New Zealander is free to express their culture, advocate for their interests, and participate in democratic processes.

The issue is whether one ethnic group should enjoy statutory rights that no other citizens possess.

Geoff Parker: From the Lands Case to Treaty Partnership

How a Judicial Observation Became a Constitutional Doctrine

Introduction: How a Legal Interpretation Became a Constitutional Debate

Few court decisions have had a greater impact on New Zealand’s constitutional debate than the 1987 Court of Appeal decision in New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General, commonly known as the Lands Case.

Geoff Parker: Mana Whakahono ā Rohe - The Power Behind the Process

In a recent opinion piece, New Plymouth District Councillor Dinnie Moeahu defends Mana Whakahono ā Rohe (MWaR) by dismissing critics as victims of "myths" and "political slogans". He argues that because MWaR agreements under Sections 58L–58U of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) are categorised as "participation agreements", they do not transfer statutory authority, create co-governance, or establish a veto.

This defence relies heavily on semantics. In public policy and administrative law, controlling the process can significantly influence the outcome.