The Governments DEI Rollback Is Hypocrisy in Plain Sight
By Dr Harpreet Singh | drhsinghnz.substack.com | FB: @Dr.Harpreet.Singh.NZ
These articles are posted to the Facebook Group Aotearoa New Zealand History. Feel free to join the group and discuss these articles. It is a safe space where hate is not tolerated.
The actions and statements emerging from the current Coalition Government are a relentless display of hypocrisy and deceit. It is astounding that individuals who have directly benefited from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies now actively peddle dishonest narratives against them. The only rational conclusion is that the pursuit of power has led them to completely abandon their collective moral integrity.
ACT MP Dr Parmjeet Parmar’s recent announcement celebrating the removal of Treaty clauses and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) provisions from polytechnic legislation is not simply a policy shift; it is a clear act of hypocrisy.
Dr Parmar’s personal journey is inseparable from the success of DEI in New Zealand. She migrated here in 1995, earned a PhD in neuroscience, and became a Member of Parliament. Her achievements were directly made possible by inclusive immigration policies, publicly funded education, and a society that increasingly valued multicultural representation. These are the direct outcomes of DEI principles embedded in New Zealand’s legal and institutional frameworks. Her rise from migrant to MP is a textbook example of how DEI opens doors for those historically excluded from power and opportunity.
Yet today, she supports the removal of DEI and Treaty commitments from tertiary education governance, the very structures that enabled her to thrive. This contradiction is not subtle. It is a deliberate attempt to erase the very ladder she climbed.
New Zealand’s commitment to equity for women and migrants was enshrined in a series of laws passed well before Dr Parmar arrived. The Immigration Act 1987 allowed her residency, and the Citizenship Act 1977 enabled her to stand for Parliament. Her academic success was supported by the Education Act 1964, which guaranteed access to publicly funded education. Furthermore, the Equal Pay Act 1972 and the Human Rights Commission Act 1977 protected her from discrimination and guaranteed fair pay. These laws were not abstract ideals; they were the scaffolding of Dr Parmar’s own success story.
Her position reflects a troubling pattern seen among some successful migrants who benefit from inclusive policies yet later oppose measures designed to uplift others facing systemic disadvantage. This selective approach to inclusion risks reinforcing inequality under the guise of neutrality, reframing targeted support for Māori as preferential treatment rather than a necessary correction of historical injustice. Dr Parmar’s framing of DEI as divisive and Treaty education as obsessive is inaccurate and dangerous. It undermines Te Tiriti o Waitangi and dismisses the lived realities of colonisation and systemic exclusion.
Her version of equality is not about justice. It is about preserving privilege while denying others the tools to overcome disadvantage. This is not leadership. It is selective self-interest dressed up as principle. If Dr Parmar truly believes in fairness, she must acknowledge that her own success was made possible by inclusive policies. Dismantling those policies now is not just hypocritical; it is morally indefensible.
ACT MP post can be found here.
