.jpg)
On 17 November 2025, Sean Plunket, Founder and CEO of media channel The Platform, complained to New Zealand’s Chief Ombudsman, John Allen.
Plunket’s asked Allen to “urgently investigate and review” the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s refusal to provide Plunket with all correspondence and documentation relating to the BSA’s “Provisional Interlocutory Decision” that the BSA has jurisdiction to consider complaints against The Platform. Plunket had formally requested that information from the BSA, under the Official Information Act 1982. Here’s Plunket’s request to the Ombudsman:
I’ve covered this perplexing matter in previous Substacks:
The Broadcasting Standards Authority’s war on media channel The Platform is heating up and could well explode in 2026. I’ve covered the BSA’s ideologically driven attempt to assert jurisdiction over The Platform in a previous Substack:
On 20 February 2026, the Ombudsman responded to Plunket’s complaint. Shockingly, John Allen has sided with the BSA. Here’s the Ombudsman’s response
The Ombudsman’s “likely opinion” is that the BSA’s decision to assert jurisdiction over The Platform is “in relation to its judicial functions”, so information about that assertion is outside of the OI Act.
The BSA’s “judicial functions” are confined to the BSA’s adjudicative functions i.e., in response to specific complaints, making decisions, awarding costs, etc. The Ombudsman is trying to argue that, although the BSA’s provisional decision that it has general jurisdiction over The Platform is clearly not a determination of Richard Fanselow’s particular complaint (that Plunket is a racist), the decision is nevertheless “in relation to” its judicial functions.
The gist of the Ombudsman’s crappy argument is that, when faced with any complaint, the BSA must of course decide whether it has jurisdiction to consider the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s opinion is clearly wrong, on several levels. Here’s why…
The BSA’s provisional decision - that The Platform is within the BSA’s legitimate line of fire - is clearly severable from Fanslowe’s complaint (or any other complaint) about The Platform. Indisputably, the BSA could have issued The Platform with its “decision” that The Platform is in the gun outside of any determination of a particular complaint. The jurisdictional assertion therefore necessarily is not, and cannot be, “in relation to [the BSA’s] judicial functions”.
The BSA’s provisional decision to try and snare The Platform also cannot be “in relation to [the BSA’s] judicial function” because the BSA’s determination itself is clearly incorrect i.e., The Platform is clearly outside of the BSA’s jurisdiction under the Broadcasting Act. In other words, the BSA’s decision cannot be “in relation to [the BSA’s] judicial functions” because The Platform is legally outside of the BSA’s judicial functions.
Fanslowe’s complaint is not a complaint that the BSA is entitled to consider. This is because, under the BSA’s own rules, in order for the BSA to consider a complaint, the complainant must specify what broadcasting standard is alleged to have been breached. Fanslowe has not specified what broadcasting standard he thinks Plunket has breached. It follows that, because the relevant complaint is not within the BSA’s “judicial functions”, the BSA’s decision on jurisdiction over The Platform necessarily cannot be “in relation to” the BSA’s judicial functions.
I could go on. But let’s now speculate on why the hell our Chief Ombudsman John Allen is erroneously siding with the BSA and against The Platform.
The signatory to the Ombudsman’s letter is John Owen, who states “John Allen…has asked me to advance this matter on his behalf”. Given the significance and public profile of this matter, we can safely say that John Allen is behind John Owen’s letter and is therefore personally siding with the BSA. Why might that be?
The most generous interpretation of Allen’s stance is that he’s honesty mistaken about the legal position. And it’s certainly true that Allen is not the sharpest tool in NZ’s shed of lawyers and is donkey deep into his dotage. However, the notion that the BSA’s attempt to capture (and kill) The Platform is “in relation to [the BSA’s] judicial function” is so fanciful and flawed that we can rule out Allen being just honestly mistaken.
The evidence therefore is that Allen is acting in bad faith. But why? Simple. Allen is a creature of New Zealand’s Deep State/public service bureaucratic Blob…call it what you will. His personal loyalties therefore lie with censorious outfits like the BSA.
Has-been Allen has been shambling around in the public service for what seems an eternity.
In 2014, as head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade, Allen was forced to apologise to sexual assault victim Tania Billingsley and the Government, for MFAT permitting a known sex criminal, a man at the Malaysian embassy, to escape back to Malaysia and avoid facing justice in New Zealand. MFAT’s permission was despite the Malaysian Government’s willingness to waive diplomatic immunity and allow Mohammed Rizalman to stand trial in New Zealand.
In a normal, functioning public service, letting a sex offender escape justice would’ve been the end of Addled Allen’s time in New Zealand public institutions. But no. He then grifted off to the Racing Board, WellingtonNZ (whatever that was/is) and the chancellorship of Victoria University of Wokeington, before assuming the mantle of Chief Ombudsman. That’s the way it works in Blobtearoa. They fail upwards.
It was in his capacity as Chancellor of VUW that I witnessed, along with other proud parents and families, a bizarre speech from Allen at a graduation ceremony. Appearing to have overdosed on Adderall, Allen frothed and spluttered and blurted “AOTEAROA” about a thousand times (never “New Zealand”) before being ushered off the stage.
And now New Zealanders are having to endure Allen as Chief Ombudsman. As well as being technically wrong, Allen’s decision (to try and allow the BSA to keep secret the reasons for its onslaught on The Platform) directly contradicts the purposes of the OI Act. Those purposes expressly include:
“to increase progressively the availability of official information to the people of New Zealand in order to enable their more effective participation in the making and administration of laws and policies, and to promote the accountability of Ministers of the Crown and officials”.
Allen doesn’t know what he’s supposed to be doing.
New Zealand’s Chief Ombudsman is therefore just another self-serving, screaming Leftie looking to protect the Blob from public scrutiny and silence free media and public debate in New Zealand. He and his coterie are unserious people, but they are also underhand, subversive, powerful and dangerous to our South Pacific Polity.
In these dark times for New Zealand’s democracy, my levels of civility are obviously crashing. But, when normal, everyday New Zealanders are getting baseball bats in the teeth from the Blob Wokerati, what are we supposed to do? Stand to attention, salute our overlords and tamely surrender our pearly whites? No is the answer. Civility will never work. These types are not amenable to persuasion out of their ideological prejudices.
So, what might Allen be protecting the BSA from disclosing to Plunket? Fortunately, we have clear and intriguing clues. In response to other OIA requests from Plunket, Stacy Wood, chief executive of the BSA, let it slip that (in her own revealing words):
“In late May 2024 I requested a meeting with the Disinformation Project to discuss areas of shared interest, including mis- and disinformation in media. This resulted in an online meeting between myself and Dr Hattotuwa on 5 June 2024, and an in-person meeting between myself and Ms Skews-Poole on 18 June.
The BSA subsequently engaged Ms Skews-Poole to give a presentation on disinformation in New Zealand at its August 2024 board meeting.”
We therefore know the sorts of Woke nutjobs that the BSA kicks around with and defers to. I’ve previously commented on Hattotuwa, as well as the paranoid neo-Marxist head of the defunct Disinformation Project, Kate Hannah (Hate Canner).
It’s self-evident that the BSA and the Chief Ombudsman are skewing the pitch. Without any legal authority to mandate non-disclosure of its provisional decision to assert dominion over The Platform, the BSA splattered “NOT FOR PUBLICATION” all over the document. Clearly, the BSA was anxiously trying to ensure that its attempt to drown The Platform with upheld complaints was done in secret. Thankfully, Plunket wasn’t having a bar of the BSA’s BS shenanigans and promptly published the “NOT FOR PUBLICATION” piffle on The Platform’s website. Never back down to bullies.
The Ombudsman has tried the same covert tactics as the BSA, stating:
“Please note that Ombudsmen must conduct their investigations in private” (section 18(2) of the Act) and “This information is provided to you in confidence, in order to seek your comment before the Ombudsman forms an opinion on your complaint. Confidentiality should be maintained until the outcome of the investigation is finalised”.
The Ombudsman is again being disingenuous; section 18(2) only requires the Ombudsman to keep an investigation private and does not prevent a complainant disclosing details of the investigation. This is sly, misleading stuff.
The Ombudsman has also thrown in egregiously asymmetric timeframes. Astute readers will have noted that, while the Ombudsman took over three months to respond to Plunket’s request, it purported to give Plunket only a week to respond to the Ombudsman’s “likely opinion”, after which “it will be assumed this likely opinion has resolved your concerns and the complaint will be closed”. The Ombudsman’s bogus 27 February 2026 deadline has now passed.
These are dark times indeed for New Zealand. Independent media is under concerted attack from censors, our Chief Ombudsman and the incumbent Government itself, with Minister Paul Goldsmith sitting silently on his hands.
All indicators are therefore that John Allen supports the BSA’s lawless pursuit of The Platform. He’s worse than weak. A man who ought to be a champion of Government transparency is a thinly disguised partisan fighter against open Government and independent media. A woeful, waning wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I’ve repeatedly complained in my Substacks about the Wokedeological biases of New Zealand’s Courts and public service. However, John Allen’s misconduct is the darkest I’ve covered.
Pollyannas may argue that, whatever the BSA and Ombudsman may be conspiring to inflict on The Platform, Plunket will prevail in Court. But we know, don’t we, that the Courts would almost certainly join this conspiracy against truly independent media. The higher any Court proceedings may get up the chain (Court of Appeal/Supreme Court), the less like it is that The Platform would prevail.
In formal Court proceedings, the discovery process ought to disclose why the BSA is going after The Platform. That prospect may prompt the BSA to back off and stick to its statutory lane. We can only hope.
“Misfeasance in public office” is what the former British Prince, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, along with the creepy Tony Blairite, Lord Mandelson, have been charged with. The charges result from disclosures in the Epstein files. This tort also exists under New Zealand law.
The essential elements of misfeasance in public office are knowing or reckless misuse of public powers and functions by a public officer.
Any future New Zealand Government that has the guts and competence to bring our public service to heel should formally charge those who have committed malfeasance in public office.
Having now published 167 Substacks, I’ve never be threatened with legal proceedings, for defamation or otherwise. This is because I get my facts and law right, and there’s a reasonable basis for every single statement of opinion I express. I don’t expect to hear from Ombudsman John Allen. Which says it all, doesn’t it.