ACT candidate Ash Parmar targets cost of living, crime and red tape (Video)

ACT candidate Ash Parmar for Waikato says reducing the cost of living, tackling crime and stripping away unnecessary regulation will be among his priorities as he makes a second bid to enter Parliament at the 2026 general election.

Speaking in an interview on the Penny Marie YouTube channel, Parmar outlined his path from businessman and retail-crime campaigner to political candidate, while discussing immigration, economic development, law and order and ACT’s approach to the public service.

Parmar moved to New Zealand from New Delhi with his parents and younger brother 25 years ago, aged 17, and has spent much of his adult life in and around Hamilton. His family established liquor stores across the Waikato and beyond, giving Parmar around two decades of experience running businesses and employing staff.

His entry into politics was heavily influenced by retail crime. Parmar said his family’s Huntly liquor store was robbed twice within four days in the lead-up to the previous general election, prompting him to campaign publicly for tougher policies.

“I realised it’s the policy change we need, not a bunch of words and promises from other people,” he said.

Parmar previously stood for ACT at number 13 on the party list but narrowly missed entering Parliament. After the election he was appointed to a ministerial advisory panel on retail crime, an experience he said gave him a greater appreciation of how policy and legislation are developed.

He is now campaigning again with a broader focus, including farmers, growers, tradespeople, manufacturers, education and healthcare.

Asked about the biggest concern he was hearing from voters, Parmar gave a straightforward answer: “Cost of living.”

He said conversations at local markets had shown that rising living costs were affecting people across different occupations and circumstances.

Parmar also argued that his experience operating businesses had prepared him for political negotiations. Running multiple stores involved employing workers, negotiating leases and supplier arrangements, responding to changing market conditions and making difficult financial decisions, he said.

He pointed to two businesses his family had closed after they became financially unsustainable, arguing governments should likewise recognise when programmes are failing rather than continuing to pour taxpayers’ money into them.

“You can’t just keep throwing money into a bad enterprise,” Parmar said. “At some point, you have to just make the tough call and shut it down.”

On economic policy, Parmar backed ACT’s emphasis on smaller government, lower taxation, individual freedom and reducing red tape. He argued prosperity is primarily generated by productive relationships between businesses and workers rather than by government.

“Governments don’t create prosperity,” he said, arguing their role should instead be to establish conditions allowing employers and employees to grow and produce.

Immigration was another area Parmar said he felt strongly about, noting that he was himself an immigrant.

He rejected calls to close New Zealand’s borders, saying businesses still need access to overseas workers with skills that cannot readily be found domestically. However, Parmar backed ACT’s position that immigration should target needed skills and said migrants should demonstrate sufficient English to integrate successfully.

He also supported a five-year stand-down before new migrants receive certain welfare benefits, arguing those entitlements had been built through the contributions of New Zealanders.

On diversity, equity and inclusion, Parmar drew a distinction between equal opportunity and policies intended to produce equity. He said people should not be excluded from employment, sport or other opportunities because of their race, culture or religion, but questioned policies that give particular groups additional rights or influence to compensate for historical disadvantage.

ACT’s approach, he said, was centred on “equal rights” and “equal opportunity”.

Parmar also backed ACT’s recently announced “One Public Service for All” policy. He argued public servants should concentrate on providing services and productivity rather than having religious or cultural practices imposed through the workplace.

Employees should remain free to practise their beliefs privately, he said, but neither colleagues nor government employers should force those practices on others.

Law and order remains particularly important to Parmar.

He backed three-strikes legislation, stronger sentencing protections for vulnerable workers and changes to the use of taxpayer-funded cultural reports in criminal sentencing.

Parmar said an offender who robbed him received what he described as a 76 per cent sentencing discount after mitigating circumstances were considered.

While acknowledging that offenders can come from difficult backgrounds, Parmar questioned whether reducing sentences without first addressing offending behaviour adequately protects the public.

“You can’t tell me putting this guy back on the street faster is the right thing to do,” he said.

Asked whether there were ACT policies he opposed, Parmar did not nominate one, instead saying he wanted the party to go further in areas including law and order, reducing the public service and removing regulation.

He acknowledged ACT’s ability to implement its programme was constrained by being one member of a three-party coalition and said a larger ACT caucus would give the party greater ability to advance its policies.

Parmar said that even if he again fails to enter Parliament, he intends to continue advocating on regional economic issues, productivity and crime.

His long-term ambition for the country was summed up during the interview’s rapid-fire section.

“New Zealand in 10 years,” Parmar said, “will be full of opportunity for our younger people.”