The Public Service Amendment Act 2026 came into force on June 3 2026, repealing the statutory provisions that required New Zealand public service agencies to run Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programmes.
The law removes section 75 of the Public Service Act 2020 and scales back related provisions that had required public service chief executives to foster workplaces that were
inclusive of all groups and reflective of society. In practical terms, agencies are no longer legally required to maintain DEI plans, diversity-based hiring frameworks, or mandatory
inclusion programmes under those provisions, says independent journalist Penny Marie.
Penny Marie said the change is significant for anyone concerned about the spread of ideology across the public service.
“Merit is now the law. DEI is not.
“This amendment is a real legal change, and New Zealanders should understand both what it does and what it does not do. It removes the statutory mandate for DEI in the public
service, but it does not automatically dismantle every existing programme, policy, or network. That is why public scrutiny now matters.”
The public record shows the bill that passed was a National-ACT Government Bill. NZ First proposed a Member’s Bill that did not progress. Neither the National-ACT or National-NZFirst coalition agreements specifically stated that DEI provisions would be removed. The outcome we have now is an example of the coalition working together,” she said.
“Labour introduced the original Public Service Act 2020 in 2020, and NZ First voted it in. The legislative history matters, because New Zealanders deserve to know who built the
system and who is now changing it.”
The article also examines what has and has not changed within the public service, and what the public can do next – including how to use the Official Information Act to find out
whether agencies are continuing DEI activities under new names.
“The law has changed. The bureaucracy has not yet,” Marie said. “If agencies keep these programmes alive, they should be prepared to explain the legal basis and the cost to
taxpayers.”
Just in time for the influx of cheap (but not necessarily unskilled) labour compliments of a so called “trade agreement”.
Merit is now the law? Can’t be, ’cause most cuntcils would be defunct and half the beehive would be empty.