Colinxy: When “Respect” Means “Obey the Ideology” - A Case Study in Public‑Sector Confusion

The ACT Party has released its proposed rule book for public servants. It is not complicated, nor is it radical. It is, in fact, the kind of thing most New Zealanders assume already exists:

The Code of Conduct for the Public Sector

Our Values and Principles

• We recognise and uphold the dignity of every person.

• We act objectively and do not allow our personal beliefs, interests, activities, or relationships to impact our work.

• We respect the authority of the government of the day.

• We are fair and robust in our recruitment and selection processes and must give preference to the person who is best suited to the position.

This is the sort of language that, until about ten minutes ago in historical terms, would have been considered uncontroversial. Neutrality. Professionalism. Merit. Service to the public rather than service to oneself or one’s ideology.

And yet, a public‑sector employee—a teacher, no less—responded with this:

“Wow. Oh the Irony. And awesome….that tiny bit that DEI scraped back, that last one obliterates that, because funny enough, with DEI ‘a best person suited for it’ got the job, just not the traditional ‘best suited white male’… I would love to know if this means ACT will stop calling other parties ‘idiots’ ‘morons’ and ‘muppets’, or maybe start showing some respect to anyone that isn’t rich and white?”

This is a revealing little artefact of the modern public sector mindset.

1. The teacher inadvertently confirms the problem ACT is trying to fix

The Code says: “Do not allow your personal beliefs to impact your work.”

The teacher replies by… immediately injecting their personal ideological beliefs into their professional identity.

The Code says: “Hire the person best suited to the job.”

The teacher replies by redefining “best suited” to mean “the person who fits DEI ideology.”

The Code says: “Respect the authority of the government of the day.”

The teacher replies by demanding that ACT MPs change their political rhetoric to suit her preferences.

It’s almost a perfect demonstration of why a neutrality code is needed.

2. The DEI claim collapses under its own weight

The teacher insists that DEI already selects “the best person for the job”—just not the “traditional best suited white male.”

This is the standard DEI sleight of hand:

• First, redefine “best” to mean “demographically preferred.”
• Then insist that this redefinition is actually the original meaning.
• Then accuse anyone who notices the redefinition of bigotry.

It’s a rhetorical trick, not an argument.

DEI has never been about identifying the most capable candidate. It is about engineering outcomes to satisfy ideological metrics. The teacher’s own comment, framed entirely around race and resentment, makes that painfully clear.

3. The accusation about ACT MPs is a distraction

The teacher tries to pivot from public‑sector neutrality to political rhetoric in Parliament. This is a category error.

MPs are elected politicians. Public servants are not. The entire point of the Westminster system is that these two roles are different.

If a teacher cannot distinguish between the responsibilities of an MP and the responsibilities of a public servant, that is not a good sign for the civic literacy of the education sector.

4. The “rich and white” line gives the game away

The teacher ends with the usual ideological flourish: “respect anyone that isn’t rich and white.”

This is the worldview DEI encourages:

• People are not individuals.
• They are demographic categories.
• Some categories are morally suspect.
• Others are morally pure.
• And the job of institutions is to reward or punish accordingly.

It is also factually wrong in the New Zealand context. ACT’s donor base includes a significant number of Asians—people who, in the DEI worldview, are often reclassified as “white‑adjacent” the moment they succeed academically or economically. The ideology simply shifts the goalposts to preserve its narrative.

5. The deeper issue: a public sector that thinks it is a political movement

The most striking thing about the teacher’s comment is not the hostility. It is the assumption that public servants should be ideological actors.

The ACT Code is trying to restore a basic constitutional principle: The public service serves the public, not a political ideology.

The teacher’s response unintentionally proves how far that principle has eroded.

Lessons for Today: What This Reveals About New Zealand’s Bureaucratic Culture

This exchange isn’t just about one teacher. It’s a snapshot of a wider institutional shift that has taken place across New Zealand’s public sector:

1. Ideology has replaced neutrality as the default setting

Many public servants now assume that their personal political worldview is not only permissible but morally required in their professional role. Neutrality is treated as complicity. Professionalism is treated as oppression.

2. DEI has become a parallel constitution

DEI frameworks quietly override traditional public‑sector principles:

• Merit becomes demographic engineering
• Impartiality becomes activism
• Service to the public becomes service to a narrative

The teacher’s comment is simply the ideology speaking through her.

3. The bureaucracy increasingly sees itself as the moral superior to the elected government

The teacher’s demand that ACT MPs change their rhetoric reveals a deeper belief: Public servants are the guardians of virtue, and elected officials must be corrected.

This is the inversion of the Westminster model. The bureaucracy is meant to serve the government, not supervise it.

4. The public sector has absorbed a worldview built on resentment and hierarchy

The “rich and white” line is not an outburst; it’s a worldview. A worldview that sorts citizens into moral categories. A worldview that now shapes hiring, training, curriculum, and policy.

5. The neutrality code is not a culture war move—it’s a restoration project

ACT’s Code is not an attack on public servants. It is an attempt to restore the constitutional norms that once kept the bureaucracy politically neutral and publicly accountable.

The teacher’s reaction shows just how far those norms have eroded.

Colinxy regularly blogs at No Minister, This article was sourced HERE