“For example, Parliament and ministers and others are all working on projects and they come under the surveillance of one group of people not elected who have a sort of Star Chamber quality about it,” he said.

“The next election we will be campaigning against it, and we’ll get rid of it.”

Peters said the party had done its best to “neutralise” the act’s impacts.

One of the amendments made after the select committee process related to the Regulatory Standards Board, which would be the entity to consider the consistency of legislation with the proposed principles.

The legislation’s steward, Act leader David Seymour, told the Herald at the time that the changes to the board were made at the request of NZ First to “increase its independence and effectiveness”.

Seymour has said the legislation is about improving transparency. He said it ensures future bills are assessed against the proposed principles, but any findings about their consistency are non-binding.

Previously, members of the board would have been appointed by the Minister for Regulation, raising questions about the degree of independence the board would have.

To address this concern, the committee said the bill should include a clause stating “the board must act independently (and is not responsible to a minister) in relation to performing its functions”.

Under the committee’s proposed change, the Regulation Minister would also no longer make appointments. That power would instead be transferred to the Governor-General on the recommendation of the minister.

The legislation has been contentious for a list of reasons, including concerns that it prioritises private property rights, is unnecessary, and doesn’t properly account for Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

It is part of the National-Act coalition agreement, which says the parties commit to “legislate to improve the quality of regulation, ensuring that regulatory decisions are based on principles of good law-making and economic efficiency, by passing the Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable”.

The “principles” it sets out for regulation don’t have legal effect – meaning not following them isn’t unlawful – but are intended as a guide for lawmakers and officials as to what is considered responsible regulatory practice.

Legislation would be assessed as to its consistency with the principles, though any findings would not be binding on Parliament.

Julia Gabel is a Wellington-based political reporter. She joined the Herald in 2020 and has most recently focused on data journalism.