ACT MP Parmjeet Parmar says new-colleague Paul Henry should be judged on who he is today rather than solely on remarks he made about two prominent people of Indian heritage 16 years ago.

But when asked whether that meant she believed Henry had changed, and what gave her confidence that his views were any different today, Parmar declined to elaborate.

“Paul’s comments from 16 years ago were not acceptable,” she told Awaaz. “I heard Paul himself say on the radio this week that he went too far with those comments.”

Advertisement

Last week, the ACT party announced Henry, a former broadcaster, as its list candidate for the 2026 election.

Parmar has been exceptionally scathing of Shane Jones after, in April, the NZ First deputy leader described migration from India as a "butter chicken tsunami".

Parmar had described the phrase as “a slogan to stir fear and grab attention”, and defended the contribution migrants made to New Zealand.

Awaaz asked for her thoughts on Henry’s comments about former Delhi chief minister Sheila Dikshit and New Zealand-born governor-general Sir Anand Satyanand.

In 2010, Henry repeatedly mocked Dikshit’s surname during a television segment and linked the vulgar interpretation he gave it to her Indian identity.

The remarks prompted a formal diplomatic protest from India.

In a separate controversy, Henry asked then prime minister John Key whether Satyanand was “even a New Zealander”, and whether his successor would be someone who “looks and sounds like a New Zealander”. Satyanand was born and raised in Auckland.

The controversies led to Henry’s suspension and eventual resignation from TVNZ.

‘Judge people on who they are today’

Responding to Awaaz, Parmar said Henry’s comments were unacceptable. But she argued Henry’s remarks should not be the sole basis on which he was assessed today.

“That was 16 years ago. Paul was not part of the ACT team then, but he is today,” she said.

“I think it’s fair to judge people on who they are today, not solely on something they said nearly two decades ago.”

Parmar said people should be judged by the contribution they made rather than their ancestry or ethnicity.

Has Henry changed?

Parmar drew a distinction between Henry’s conduct 16 years ago and the person she believes voters should assess today.

However, she did not say whether she believed Henry had changed since making the remarks, or explain what she knew about his present views on ethnicity and belonging.

Awaaz asked Parmar in a follow-up what evidence gave her confidence that Henry’s views had changed.

She was also asked whether she considered his comments racist, whether his admission that he had “gone too far” amounted to an adequate apology, and whether ACT had examined the remarks before approving his candidacy.

Her office said Parmar would not provide any further response.

“Dr Parmar’s position is reflected in the statement we provided yesterday,” a spokesperson said.

“She has nothing further to add.”

Parmar challenged Jones’ rhetoric

In Parliament in April, Parmar said Jones’ “butter chicken tsunami” phrase was designed to stir fear about migrants.

She highlighted the roles migrants performed across the economy, including stocking supermarket shelves.

Without them, she said, “it will not only be butter chicken missing from people’s dining tables, there will be no hāngi at community events, there will be no bacon and eggs for breakfast”.

National and ACT MPs later criticised Jones’ comments as racist and dismissed them as “lame dad jokes”.

Parmar has now condemned Henry’s past comments as unacceptable while backing him as a “great addition” to ACT.

ACT leader David Seymour has described Henry as “sharp, fearless, and an exceptional communicator” when announcing his candidacy.

Henry will stand as a list-only candidate. ACT has not yet announced his position on its party list.