Act leader David Seymour says Winston Peters’ promise to repeal the Regulatory Standards Act “sounds like he’s getting ready to go with Labour again”.

Peters has vowed to “get rid” of the legislation, which only passed its royal assent and became law two days ago, if elected at the 2026 general election.

The NZ First leader says the bill, which creates a Regulatory Standards Board, was a degree of intervention “not fit for a modern democracy”.

“I’m making it very clear where we stand. We believe in the fundamental principles of democracy and the paramountcy of Parliament – not an unelected committee."

The legislation was a coalition agreement between Act and National. Seymour, who shepherded the bill through Parliament, said Peters’ revolt against it indicated he “he seems to be lining up for a different kind of coalition”.

“What’s clear is that this is a landmark piece of legislation that Act would never vote to get rid of,” Seymour said.

“So if he wants to do this, he’s got to go with Labour. If his goal is to get rid of the Regulatory Standards Act, he’s not going to get votes from us to do that so he’d have to go with Labour.”

Put to him that Seymour suggested it sounds like he was getting ready to try form a coalition with Labour, Peters said: “Don’t make me laugh.”

He said Labour had “no position on anything”, despite it having a position to repeal the legislation.

Peters earlier told Waatea News’ Dale Husband his party was opposed to the bill from “the word go”.

“You’ve only got so many cards. We did our best to neutralise its adverse effects, and we will campaign at the next election to repeal it.”

The act sets out “principles” for “good” regulation and would see the establishment of the Regulatory Standards Board, an entity to consider the consistency of legislation with the proposed principles.

Peters called the powers that would be given to the new board a “terrible overreach”.

“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.

Act leader David Seymour has defended his legislation. Photo / Sylvie Whinray

The legislation’s steward, 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.