New Zealand First has confirmed it will campaign on disestablishing the Independent Māori Statutory Board, describing the body as an unelected layer within Auckland Council that lacks democratic legitimacy, according to RNZ.

The IMSB was established under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 when the city's local councils were merged into a single supercity. Its statutory function is to assist Auckland Council in making decisions by promoting issues of significance for Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau. Unlike elected councillors, its members are appointed through a process involving mana whenua (local Māori with authority over the land) and mataawaka (Māori groups who have settled the area). New Zealand First's objection is straightforward: bodies that influence council decisions should be accountable through elections, not appointment.

This sits within NZ First's broader campaign against what it calls co-governance arrangements — structures that, in the party's view, create parallel or preferential pathways in public institutions. Changing or removing the IMSB would require amending Parliament's 2009 legislation. Auckland Council cannot do this alone, regardless of the mayor's position.

Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown responded sharply, calling the policy "dumb racist stuff" — language that will keep this debate in the spotlight heading into the campaign. Brown has generally presented himself as focused on infrastructure and finances rather than political identity issues, which makes his direct response notable.

The IMSB has been a recurring target for right-leaning parties since its creation. The argument against it has been consistent: appointed bodies with a statutory role in council decision-making undermine the democratic chain of accountability. Defenders — including Auckland Council administrations and iwi representatives — counter that the IMSB fills a structural gap. They argue that Māori interests were historically underrepresented in local government, and that the appointment process has its own form of accountability through mana whenua mandates.

These constitutional arguments are not new. What changes is the electoral timing. NZ First returned to Parliament in 2023 after failing to enter in 2020, and it is now building its 2026 policy platform. Concrete, nameable policies tend to perform better in voter communication than abstract arguments about co-governance. The IMSB offers NZ First a specific target rather than a diffuse critique.

Whether this policy becomes a vote-winner will depend partly on how it plays in Auckland, where the board actually operates, and partly on how NZ First's coalition partners — ACT and National — respond. Neither has campaigned for the IMSB's abolition, though both have expressed scepticism about co-governance frameworks. If NZ First makes the IMSB's disestablishment a bottom-line condition in post-election negotiations, it could put National in a difficult position: opposing the policy risks losing NZ First's support, but backing it carries its own costs.

Parliament can amend the 2009 Act by a simple majority. If a right-leaning coalition with NZ First holds a majority after 2026, the legislative pathway is straightforward. The political question is whether coalition partners will treat this as a priority or a negotiated concession.

For those watching the campaign, the announcement signals that NZ First intends to make Māori-specific statutory bodies a live issue at both national and local government levels. The framing of the IMSB as "unelected" echoes arguments made against the Māori Health Authority before its disestablishment in 2024, suggesting a consistent rhetorical strategy the party intends to apply across multiple institutions.