Ms Tania Simpson Appointed First Woman Chair Of The Waitangi National Trust Board
Tania Simpson (Ngpuhi, Ngi Tahu, Tainui) brings decades of experience at the highest levels in Mori governance, strategic leadership and Treaty engagement.
The Waitangi National Trust is excited to announce the appointment of Tania Te Rangingangana Simpson ONZM as its new Chairperson. In a historic milestone, Simpson becomes the first woman to hold the position since the Trust's establishment in 1932 and replaces outgoing Chair, Pita Tipene, who served in the role for the past 9 years.
Tania Simpson (Ngāpuhi, Ngāi Tahu, Tainui) brings decades of experience at the highest levels in Māori governance, strategic leadership and Treaty engagement.
Simpson is a nationally respected leader with a distinguished governance career, currently serving on the boards of Auckland International Airport, Meridian Energy and Waste Management New Zealand. Her previous roles include board positions with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, AgResearch and Tainui Group Holdings.
Her leadership was formally recognised when she was appointed an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit (ONZM) for services to Māori and governance. She has served as a Trustee of the Waitangi National Trust since 2017 and as Deputy Chair since 2021. As a member of Pomare's whanau she is the first woman on the Trust to represent a
rangatira of the Bay of Islands and has been an advocate for women speakers at Waitangi.
'I am honoured to take on this role at such an important time for our nation,' said Simpson. 'Waitangi is not just a place of history—it is a place of dialogue, of connection and of unity for all New Zealanders. I look forward to helping guide the Trust's work in raising awareness of the significance and intent of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and to build on the legacy of those who came before me.'
Ben Dalton, Chief Executive of Waitangi Ltd said, 'Tania's appointment is not only a landmark for the Trust but a testament to her unwavering dedication to the kaupapa of the Treaty. Her leadership will help deepen the understanding and relevance of Waitangi for generations to come.'
About the Waitangi National Trust
The Waitangi National Trust is the guardian of the Waitangi Treaty Grounds, the birthplace of Aotearoa New Zealand's founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The private Trust works to uphold the intent and integrity of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in all aspects of its governance and public engagement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
Coalition rift opens over UN letter as Seymour defends rogue response
The Act leader's unilateral reply to the UN has exposed fresh cracks in the coalition – and created a clean-up job for Winston Peters, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Letter row underscores coalition strain David Seymour's fiery response to a United Nations letter has turned into a full-blown coalition controversy, exposing divisions over both diplomatic conduct and the ideological direction of government. In June, UN special rapporteur Albert K Barume wrote to the government expressing concern that Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill failed to uphold Treaty principles and risked breaching Māori rights. Without consulting his coalition partners, Seymour fired back, sending his own letter to Barume telling him his remarks were 'presumptive, condescending, and wholly misplaced' and branding the UN intervention 'an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty'. As RNZ's Craig McCulloch reports, prime minister Christopher Luxon yesterday described Barume's letter as 'total bunkum' but agreed Seymour had overstepped and should not have responded directly. What the UN said – and what Seymour wrote back In his letter, Barume said he was concerned about reports of 'a persistent erosion of the rights of the Māori Indigenous Peoples… through regressive legislations' that may breach New Zealand's international obligations. Seymour's response was uncompromising. 'As an Indigenous New Zealander myself,' he wrote, 'I am deeply aggrieved by your audacity in presuming to speak on my behalf and that of my fellow Māori.' He dismissed concerns about Māori exclusion from consultation as 'misleading and offensive', and accused Barume of misunderstanding both the bill and New Zealand's legislative process. While Seymour has since agreed to withdraw the letter to allow foreign minister Winston Peters to respond officially, he has refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing, insisting that 'we all agree the UN's criticisms are crazy' and that the official response would be essentially the same as his own. When asked if that was the case, Peters sounded aghast, reports The Post's Kelly Dennett (paywalled). 'That's not true,' Peters told reporters. 'Why would he say that?' The government's position would be made clear only after consulting all affected ministries, Peters said. 'We don't do megaphone diplomacy in this business,' he added acidly. 'Don't you understand diplomacy? You don't speak to other countries via the media.' Māori opposition to the bill runs deep Behind the diplomatic drama lies the more substantive issue: widespread Māori opposition to the Regulatory Standards Bill itself. Writing in Te Ao Māori News, former MP Louisa Wall says Seymour's claim that the bill doesn't weaken Treaty protections is 'demonstrably false'. In fact, she says, 'the Bill is silent on Te Tiriti. It elevates a monocultural legal standard based on private property and individual liberty while excluding Māori values like tikanga, mana motuhake, and kaitiakitanga. This is not neutral. It is erasure.' Wall also defends Barume's intervention, arguing that he was fulfilling his mandate to monitor Indigenous rights worldwide and that his concerns echoed those already raised by Māori leaders and legal scholars. 'Dr Barume is not imposing an external ideology,' she writes. 'His letter reflects what Māori across the motu already know: our rights are being undermined.' Coalition fault lines widen over Seymour's bill The clash over the UN letter comes at a tense time for Act's relationship with NZ First, which has made no secret of its discomfort with parts of the bill. Seymour has 'made it clear behind the scenes' that the regulatory standards legislation is 'as bottom line as it gets', writes Thomas Coughlan in a fascinating piece for the Herald (paywalled). Translation: '[Seymour] is willing to walk away from the coalition over it, bringing down the Government and triggering an election' if he doesn't get what he wants. While that's an unlikely scenario – especially since the coalition agreement commits the government to passing some version of the legislation – Seymour's passion for the bill speaks volumes about the junior coalition partners' divergent ideologies, writes Coughlan. 'Act is willing to risk short-term unpopularity, even losing an election, for long-term foundational change; NZ First is not.'
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: A new model for our power market is needed
Bryan Leyland, Pt Chevalier. The nuclear option As always during the winter months, our energy shortage issues are again brought up. But surely we have our head in the sand to some degree, by which I mean why can't New Zealand bury the past and re-evaluate the potential of nuclear energy. The technology has come a long way and is very efficient, so why not? It would be a game-changer but would call for some very definitive and brave decision-making from our politicians, which, unfortunately, is a rare event. Paul Beck, West Harbour. Indigenous people's rights Guy Body's cartoon (July 14) depicting our Deputy Prime Minister defending New Zealand's sovereignty with a toy sword and a trash-can lid while trampling on a Māori sovereignty flag against the United Nations headquarters adds a little humour to this important issue. Twice recently a UN Special Rapporteur has expressed their concern to our Government about the erosion of indigenous people's rights. The Government has responded with indignation, so this raises the issue of the role of the UN and what powers it should have to influence decisions of all nations. We live in global society, so if we wish to carry forward an ever-advancing civilisation, then we must solve the problem of just global governance. Consultation on this issue is the need of the age we live in as the problems of anthropogenic climate change and justice for indigenous peoples must be solved at a global level. The UN Security Council has the responsibility to ensure peace with justice and, as most people agree, needs the power of veto to be removed to function effectively. So why couldn't we, through our Government, lead efforts to ensure this happens? Consultation on UN reform is not as simple or sexy as ending bottom trawling but one can suggest it is far more important! Dennis Worley, Birkenhead. Anger at actions Antisemitism is not an appropriate term to describe many of today's protests. People are furious with Israel for what it is doing in Gaza. Israel is killing mothers and children. Protests, legal or not, are against what is being done to Gaza and its people. It has nothing to do with antisemitism. Christine Henare, Miranda. All we are saying is ... President Trump has warned nations that the United States will withhold miltary aid in future conflicts unless nations ramp up their defence spending. Nations across the globe have rushed to order weapons. Including Denmark, a peace-loving nation that will increase spending by about US$7 billion ($11.7b) over the next two years. The main beneficiary will be the US arms industry. Business has never been so good. The massive increase in defence spending is a colossal waste. Nations will have no money left to spend on infrastructure or hospitals or schools. When will this madness stop? Now is the time for people to insist that their leaders give peace a chance. Now is the time to negotiate. If peace is not given a chance, it will only take one person to press the button which will light a massive bonfire that could wipe out billions of lives. Johann Nordberg, Paeroa. Health system concerns Having listened to two highly respected doctors on the TV programme Q&A, it is very concerning to see the direction in which our health minister is driving. Basically, the doctors are saying that health will become Americanised with the private system taking control. It was obvious from the interview that both doctors were strongly in favour of a tax system that directly supported health and quoted several European countries that did exactly this. Conservative governments support a vision of less public service and more private enterprise but health is, or should be, one of their core responsibilities. Reg Dempster, Albany.
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Using principles and the making of laws
Where principles and law-making meet. Photo: ODT files What are we to make of the various principles we have been hearing about recently: a principle of neutrality that is supposed to support the principle of free speech; a principle of tolerance; three principles in the Treaty Principles Bill; the Waitangi Tribunal's Treaty principles; and the principles of the Act New Zealand party. Some try to live by the principle of moderation in all things, others by the 10 pre-eminent biblical principles. Many would apply the principle of equality as equal pay for equal work. Then there are the principles of human rights and indigenous rights. It would seem that a majority of people write and speak of principles as if they are infallible statements to be read off verbatim — and that is usually the intention. It was United States psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg who formally reinforced a belief that acting in accordance with universal principles is the highest level of moral development. But since 1958, Kohlberg's claim has been thoroughly criticised, especially for being more characteristic of a male way of thinking about the world, contrary to a caring approach. Kohlberg's claim also presupposes that universal principles override particular facts and feelings which are fundamental to moral, legal and scientific considerations. In this short space, I aim to pour doubt on uncritical confidence in the wide use of principles to steer decision-making. To do that, I would like to consider two basic characteristics of principles that such use tends to run slipshod over. They amount to an inescapable interplay of faith and reason. The first characteristic of principles is that they are expressions of beliefs. Belief is another way of looking at faith commitment, irrespective of what that commitment might be anchored in: a deity, tradition, philosophical ideology or a particular interpretation of nature. We necessarily put our trust in principles in order to guide us in decision-making because there never is access to all the facts and feelings surrounding any particular matter. However, the irony here is that although principled thinking is a key tool in rational thought, it is also essentially founded on belief that cannot be fully justified. Principles are adopted in faith. Where then do principles come from? Being beliefs, they have no observable physical existence as objects or behaviours. They exist merely as ideas, even as very useful ideas. So we always need to ask, "whose ideas?" People usually invent principles to exert power and dominate, forcing others to bend to their way of thinking — what they consider "right". Therefore, we always also need to ask, "on whose authority?" and "will I accept or challenge that authority?" Like assumptions and other beliefs, principles are not a suitable basis for discussion. Unless they are widely held, they are divisive. The idea that overarching principles can act as a check on all other principles illustrates the reality that they are designed to constrain and prevent open discussion and promote conformity. On the other hand, some other overarching principles, such as the twin principles of love God and love thy neighbour, can promote wide open inclusive discussion. It is well to acknowledge that some people presume universal principles actually do exist, somewhere out there, or within the human psyche; a core suite of affirmations about what is right and wrong (moral knowledge) that all of humanity can comprehend. Unfortunately, cultures and individuals continually disagree about which principles count because there is no aspect of reality against which to verify them. Yet, as biological beings inhabiting a global environment, the principle of interdependence is hard to beat. A second characteristic of principles that also brings into question their usefulness, is that they are generalisations. This means that they result from reflection on a host of particular situations. The important point here is that it is nonsense to suppose that generalisations, such as principles, will apply in all relevant situations. Exceptions are the rule. When considering how to legislate, act or adjudicate in a situation, particular facts and feelings are crucial. The relative importance of generalisations and particulars in discussion and decision-making is disputed territory. While some believe in the supposed authority of a generalisation (a principle or law), others believe in the supposed authority that the particulars of a case provide. Alternatively, consider scientific principles and their applicability. It is often pointed out that science cannot to be trusted because scientific knowledge keeps on changing. This happens because scientific generalisations (principles and laws) are based not on beliefs as much as they are based on data sets (grassroots information, so-called facts) which keep on changing due to new observations about a changing world, and are more often than not, generated by new technologies. A good example is the recent article in Nature that discusses the use of satellite imagery and Argo floats instead of random sampling, to determine the saltiness of the Southern Ocean. This has provided a new understanding of sea ice melting. Here, there is a fit between particulars and generalisations which the use of principles per se cannot provide. I leave the following chicken and egg conundrum: do particular observations of objects and behaviours come first, or the generalisations generated by many such observations? In any case, the solution is not straightforward, and more so when we realise, as British historian Agnes Arber brought to our attention in 1954 in The Mind and the Eye, that the observer's mind brings generalisations and ideologies to observation through their eyes. Principled thinking is then, fraught with difficulty. The introduction of overarching principles as proposed by the Regulatory Standards Bill is, according to this analysis, a serious step backwards into denial of the status of such principles as power-mongering beliefs. Such a check on existing and new legislation by overarching principles is an unnecessary, if not mischievous, rationalisation. There are so many issues in health, education, corrections, welfare and the environment that elected members can surely troubleshoot through robust discussion with a commitment to co-operative non-partisan governance, without entertaining the Act party's divisive, road-blocking principles. • Ron Adams is a former teacher of ethics and theology in Dunedin.
