'It Is An Interesting Time' - Tania Simpson Takes Over As Chair Of Waitangi Trust
The new chairperson of the Waitangi National Trust Board says she intends to hit the ground running in what will ultimately be a short term.
Tania Te Rangingangana Simpson ONZM becomes the first wāhine to hold the role of chair since the trust's establishment in 1932, replacing Pita Tipene who stepped down last month after serving for the maximum length of nine years.
Simpson has served as a trustee of the Waitangi National Trust since 2017 and as deputy chair since 2021, representing the descendants of the chief Pomare. Like Tipene, she too is approaching the nine-year term limit, but she said there is still time for her to help strengthen the governance and assist the continued development of Waitangi.
"So that just means I need to not waste any time but to use the time wisely. It also means thinking about succession and thinking about what will happen at the end of that term and supporting the board through its processes to prepare for that.
"So the time may be short but I think we can achieve a lot during that time."
The Waitangi National Trust is the guardian of the Waitangi Treaty Grounds and facilitates the annual Waitangi Day celebrations.
Simpson (Ngāpuhi, Ngāi Tahu, Tainui) currently serves 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.
Simpson said she is looking forward to taking on what may come in the new role, saying there is important work to do.
"[I'm] pleased that we have a woman chair so that it demonstrates to other women and to younger women that these positions are open to them to pursue."
Simpson said she prefers a collaborative style of leadership, something she plans to extend to the government despite heightened tensions during the last two Waitangi commemorations.
"While there may be heightened discussions around aspects of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and how that is given effect to in our current world in particular in government processes, Waitangi itself continues to be the place for that kind of dialogue to occur and the place for all New Zealanders and in particular the parties to the treaty to come together and talk."
The trust has enjoyed a good working relationship with government over the years, with the government continuing to support Waitangi through projects and development funding, she said.
The trust is much more focused on maintaining Waitangi as a special, tapu place where the treaty was signed and were the spirit of partnership was agreed, she said.
"We look after that place and space and the wairua of that place in order that the parties can come together and experience it and reflect and talk about what it means to us today."
Simpson said ultimately the dialogue between Māori and government is a good thing and Waitangi is an appropriate place for it to happen.
"It is an interesting time, an interesting juncture in the development of our nationhood in that we are having conversations nationally around the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, around what the treaty promised, about what it means and how we will reflect that within our national systems and structures."
Orginisations like the Waitangi National Trust and the Waitangi Tribunal which are close to the treaty and its history have a role to play in working through those discussions and getting to a good conclusion, she said.
Lisa Tumahai, the former chair of Ngāi Tahu and representative on the board of the people, Pākeha and Māori, living in the South Island, will step into the roll of deputy chair.
The chief executive of Waitangi Ltd Ben Dalton said Simpson'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," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
4 hours ago
- Newsroom
RNZ reviving a national news wire as it aims to be journalism's cornerstone
MediaRoom column: Public broadcaster RNZ plans to launch a national news and content 'wire' service this year, bringing together at least 30 other media partners. The wire – which would be the country's first substantive news sharing-system since the NZ Press Association was closed in 2011 – is in the early stages of development by RNZ as it pursues 'digital acceleration'. RNZ says raising new revenue 'is not a motivation behind the work'. If it were to charge news organisations, or other entities or individuals to sign up for the new service it could open up subscription income, a central element in most successful online news operations. The broadcaster's forecast profit and loss table for next year includes a new, 'other' income stream for the year ahead of $2.05m, helping towards a projected ebitda (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation) surplus of $2.53m. The plan is disclosed in RNZ's statement of performance expectations for 2025/26, tabled in Parliament. The news wire is set to launch by the end of this calendar year as part of RNZ's goal of creating 'new audience experiences'. RNZ had its annual public funding cut in May's Budget by $18m over the next four years, and is conducting a cost-cutting round now to find more than $4m in savings for the coming financial year. The broadcaster is under pressure from the Government, through Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith, to increase its radio audiences, which have been falling stubbornly since a listenership boom during the pandemic. RNZ National now ranks the eighth-highest station in the country, after being a clear first five years ago, when commercial radio brands are included. RNZ's expectations document doesn't talk up a quick return to bigger radio audiences. 'Simply maintaining cumulative weekly live radio audience and time spent listening is difficult in a tough market, which is suffering incremental long-term decline.' Goldsmith also wants RNZ, and the other major public broadcaster TVNZ, to improve their 'trust' ratings with their audiences in light of industry-wide declines. The company is targeting an increase in the next year from 55 to 60 percent of New Zealanders who say RNZ is an organisation they can trust. 'RNZ will focus even more tightly on providing information people can trust and making our editorial processes as transparent as we can,' the tabled document says. RNZ wants to be a 'public media cornerstone and provider' by investing in quality journalism and content, ensuring there is strong regional NZ coverage and providing the new wire service. How the national news wire service, making RNZ journalism more easily available to third parties to publish or broadcast, would assist either the radio audience or trust goals is unclear. An RNZ spokesperson told Newsroom: 'It would be an RNZ-run and operated news wire service, and it would draw on RNZ news and content, including the copy provided by the 17 Local Democracy Reporters.' The wire service would be an extension of existing (free) agreements with individual partners (such as Newsroom) to share RNZ content. 'At this point the news wire is in its preliminary stages of development. Simply put, we are looking at developing a platform which is accessible and allows us to distribute a consolidated supply of the news and content we already have.' The Local Democracy Reporting initiative and a separate publicly funded team of journalists working from the nation's courtrooms were winners of extra funding in the Budget so could provide RNZ with a more substantial, consolidated daily news menu for partner/customers. Another of RNZ's objectives under its digital acceleration programme outlined in the report to Parliament is to increase its monthly number of users of its website to 1.6m from the current 1.5m in the Nielsen Online Ratings measure. That is on top of a 400,000 rise from 2024. It also intends to develop an AI 'query tool for surfacing content', with a prototype under way within the year. RNZ has employed a senior Stuff editor, Patrick Crewdson, as its new AI development chief, and will no doubt argue the careful adoption of AI tools will allow it to continue to operate at a high output with lower Government funding. It wants to get to a model of committing at least 90 percent of its operational spending on the production and distribution of content – and thus under 10 percent on back office or overheads. It is nearly there, sitting at 89 percent in 2024/25. TVNZ's building on Victoria St in central Auckland. Photo: Tim Murphy TVNZ will 'demonstrate' closeness to RNZ RNZ is set to move its Auckland operations into the TVNZ centre on Victoria St in Auckland within the year, and despite a failed merger proposal under the former Labour government, closer co-operation seems possible. TVNZ's similar Statement of Performance Expectations for 2025/26 pledges to report on 'initiatives that demonstrate a closer working relationship with RNZ in line with the Government's expectation'. TVNZ outlines a projected net financial loss for the coming 25/26 year of $48m, but some of that seems to include the cost of money to be invested by the company into its digital transformation. It says it will have operating revenue of $272.5m and operating expenses of $312.1m. A note in the document says there will be 'significant investment in TVNZ's digital technologies with further investment required in FY27 to complete the project utilising existing cashflows'. TVNZ wants to double its digital audiences by 2030 and triple its digital revenue by the same year, from base figures in 2023, meaning revenues would jump from $55.6m then and around $67.7m this year to $150m at the end of the decade. The broadcaster has set a target for its 1 News audience at 6pm nightly on TV which drops slightly from around 588,000 so far this year to 582,000 next financial year. Streaming of the news on TVNZ+ is predicted to go up from 191,000 to 220,000. The state broadcaster has set an aim of topping the AUT Trust in News report, with a target of 6 points (out of 10), up from third-equal the past two years with 4.8 and 5.6. It commits to commissioning an independent review of its news, looking at balance and bias and to 'constantly monitor for the separation of fact and opinion'.
Newsroom
4 hours ago
- Newsroom
Anne Salmond: Freedom, for whom?
The debate over the Regulatory Standards Bill has been illuminating. New Zealanders have learned a great deal about how our society is being run at present, by whom and for whom. In this bill, a small libertarian minority is attempting to use the law of the land, past and present, to uphold the priority of private rights and property over all other values, including care for the environment, the just treatment of minority groups and the public good. A recent Post article by Andrea Vance casts light on how the Regulatory Standards Bill was conceived and drafted, and by whom. The New Zealand Initiative, a right wing think tank, with its predecessor the Business Round Table, has been trying to get such a bill passed for the past 25 years. After the last election, while the coalition Government was being formed, the Act party with just 8.6 percent of the vote negotiated the inclusion of the draft Regulatory Standards Bill in the coalition agreement, with the Treaty Principles Bill and many other measures. The Government was formed in late November 2024, with the leader of Act appointed Minister for Regulation with a new ministry, and as Deputy Prime Minister for the second half of the parliamentary term. The draft Regulatory Standards Bill was sent out for public consultation. The period for feedback was brief and included the Christmas holidays, a timing that aroused resentment. According to the Post article, during this time the New Zealand Initiative was deeply engaged in backroom discussions with the government. A primary architect of the Bill, a senior fellow of the New Zealand Initiative, was constantly in touch with the Act leader as Minister for Regulation and the CE of the new Ministry throughout, consulting on the bill. The impression one gains from the written correspondence, now in the public arena, is of a lack of wider discussion within the ministry, with critics of the draft legislation (including myself, with almost every other commentator) being dismissed in the most patronising and jaundiced terms – the opposite of a democratic exchange of ideas. In the event, and despite the unhelpful timing, 23,000 New Zealanders submitted on the draft Regulatory Standards Bill, with only .33% in favour. Nevertheless, in May 2025 the bill was brought to Parliament for its first reading, which was held under urgency, and sent to a select committee. During the consultation period, which ended in late June, a reported 150,000 New Zealanders sent in their submissions on the bill, the vast majority opposed to its measures, with 16,000 citizens asking to be heard by the select committee. Meanwhile, as Minister for Regulation, Deputy Prime Minister and Acting Prime Minister, the leader of the Act party authorised an online 'Victim of the Day' campaign, designed and delivered by staff using the logo of the Parliamentary Service on their social posts. This featured the portraits of a series of academics (including myself) and others, describing them as 'Victim of the Day' and 'deranged' for criticising the bill, and decorated with the parliamentary insignia. This effort to silence critics by online trolling, not just by the Act party but from Parliament and the highest office in the land, provoked a petition that has attracted over 24,000 signatures to date. This petition calls on the Prime Minister to uphold the requirement in the Cabinet Manual that ministers 'behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical and behavioural standards.' In early July, the select committee on the Regulatory Standards Bill began hearing submissions, over just 30 hours in total with no MPs in the room. Of 16,000 individual citizens who had asked to submit in person, only 208 were allowed to speak, and then for 5 minutes each. This was a further breach of the rights of citizens to have their views about legislation before parliament heard and weighed in the balance. Throughout the deliberations on this bill, in the name of individual freedom, the rights of individual New Zealanders to speak their minds and think differently from a small libertarian minority have been thwarted. This applies across the political spectrum, including many who might be described as 'conservative' in their values. New Zealanders who uphold ideas about civic responsibility as well as individual rights and property, including care for the environment, the just treatment of minority groups, Te Tiriti and legislative measures in the public interest, for instance, are dismissed as 'misinformed,' or even incapable of rational thought. If most Kiwis realised that when the bill talks about freedom for 'persons,' it's talking about freedom for corporations (which in law, are defined as legal 'persons'), not just citizens, they'd see why its backers are so keen to annihilate its critics. Individual freedom and rights sound appealing, until you understand the bill is also seeking freedom for corporations as legal 'persons' to make profits with minimal restraints. In the event, the submitters who spoke in front of the select committee were overwhelmingly opposed to the draft bill. Incisive, authoritative analyses of its flaws and negative consequences if enacted were offered from many different vantage points. In a healthy democracy, one would expect that given this kind of feedback, a select committee would recommend to reject the bill, or at least significantly revise it. A few days ago, however, an article in The Herald by Thomas Coughlan revealed that the leader of the Act party has threatened to break the coalition unless the Regulatory Standards Bill is passed as drafted. This would be another breach of the right of citizens to be heard by those in power, and for their views to be taken into account when legislation is enacted. While the Deputy Prime Minister and other advocates continue to argue this bill is simply a technical measure, aimed at smoothing the legislative process, this is clearly not the case. No political party in a coalition would threaten to bring down the Government over a trivial matter of that kind. On closer analysis, passionate rhetoric about individual rights and freedoms by Act and its supporters emerges as 'double speak,' talk that disguises an opposite intention – in this case, to force others to adopt libertarian values about the primacy of private property and the rights of corporations as legal persons, using the law to do it. This includes imposing libertarian versions of 'freedom of speech' on universities, alongside efforts to control the media in New Zealand, including the internet. Rather than the pursuit of freedom of speech, this is a fundamentally authoritarian project, underpinned by a sense of intellectual superiority. Anyone who thinks differently from the Act party, its think tanks and its backers is misguided or a fool, and must be made to pull the forelock and bow the knee, by law. 'Closed' rather than 'open' minds, backed by the exercise of political power. Faced with this kind of imposition, most New Zealanders would tell its proponents to get lost. Democratic values, a care for others and the land are still strong in this country, if not in some political parties. Distilled to its essence, that is the message coming from the electorate about the Regulatory Standards Bill – and the attempts by the same fringe party to subvert academic freedom, for instance. The majority in Parliament would be wise to listen. Act's libertarian stunts are a self-serving distraction from other, more urgent challenges – the health crisis, the energy market, resilience to climate change, and the hordes of Kiwis leaving the country, for instance. They're fiddling with old, passé ideas while the world is drowning, or burning. At the heart of the matter, a bill that requires the primacy of private property and the rights of 'persons' in all law making in New Zealand will inevitably privilege those who have 'property' and power over those who don't. While many Kiwis hold fast to ideas of 'a fair go' and a decent society, since the 1980s neo-liberal philosophies have dominated governance in this country, so that the top 1 percent in New Zealand now hold 23 percent of the wealth. Productivity suffers when there's not enough to eat at home and children go to school hungry; housing is poor or lacking altogether for many families; and low-paid workers are penalised to allow tax breaks for landlords and other wealthy interests, as in the Act-driven changes to the Pay Equity Act. The World Bank, the OECD and Nobel prize winners have all concluded that radical inequality works against sustainable prosperity. The Regulatory Standards Bill, with its privileging of libertarian ideas, will make inequality even worse, with widespread child poverty, low paid, insecure jobs and social misery. No wonder so many New Zealanders are leaving the country. Its time for National to agree to disagree with Act, and start making a positive difference for New Zealanders, or as Peter Dunne has warned, face the electoral consequences.
The Spinoff
4 hours ago
- The Spinoff
The cost of living crisis is over – this is just our reality now
New Zealanders are participating in mass delusion by insisting we are still in a 'crisis', argues a nihilistic Mad Chapman. Imagine you don't smoke. You tell everyone you don't smoke, and it's true. Then one night you drink a few too many beers at a party and find yourself smoking a durry on the deck with your new best friend who you just met. You wake up the next morning, throat feeling disgusting, and think 'that was weird and out of character'. When someone tells you they didn't know you smoked, you say no, I don't smoke, that was just a silly thing I did in a moment of weakness. The next weekend it happens again. You still don't smoke, except when you're really drunk. Then you start a big work project and find yourself staying late at the office a lot. Sometimes you have a beer to take the edge off while you work. What goes hand in hand with a beer? A smoke. Just one pack you think. I don't smoke but this project is hectic and one pack could help with the stress. As soon as that big project ends, another one begins. A year later, your colleague sees you smoking outside the office at 11am and asks when you started smoking. No, you insist, I don't smoke! There's just a lot going on right now. They look at you for a second too long before nodding and walking away. This is how we all sound in the year 2025, insisting the cost of living is still a temporary crisis. We've become so used to the phrase it's hard to remember when it actually began. Such a concept is relatively modern. A search of newspapers (some as recent as 1989) returns no results for 'cost of living crisis' but does reveal that in 1918, Australian butter prices shot up and prompted public protests to the Price of Commodities Commission, 'a sort of Cost of Living Appeal Board'. The writer suggested this sort of thing was needed here in New Zealand too. What is a crisis? A crisis is 'a time of intense difficulty or danger'. A crisis can be personal, societal or economic, and demands immediate action and attention. The Covid-19 pandemic was a crisis. Effects of that are still being felt across the world but most people would agree the 'crisis' element has passed, largely due to that aforementioned urgent action and attention. The delayed impact was the cost of living, which became an official crisis in New Zealand around the beginning of 2022. Three and a half years later and you can still expect to see 'cost of living crisis' in a headline at least twice a week. That's a long time to be in need of 'urgent action and attention'. Which actually begs the question of whether or not our cost of living crisis can even be called a crisis if there has been a distinct lack of urgent action and attention? Like a cursed Schrodinger's cat, can a crisis exist if it is, by all practical measures, ignored? The finance minister certainly intends to address it, as the finance minister before her intended to. Nicola Willis told RNZ last week she agreed with Kiwibank economist Jarrod Kerr's assessment that we still live in a 'severe cost of living crisis'. She acknowledged the near-exponential increase in prices over the past five years (across groceries, power, transport etc) but suggested the true solution is a growth in wages to afford those skyrocketing costs. The government has a to-do list that is going to 'rebuild the economy' in the third quarter of its term, including specific cost-of-living actions around supermarket competition – which have not yet been checked off. When asked for a timeline for legislation that could potentially stem the rate of inflationary prices, Willis instead returned to a promise on rising wages. In other words, things aren't going to ever get cheaper but maybe you'll get a promotion. Wages did in fact increase recently – including a smidge increase in the minimum wage in April – but that hasn't scared the high prices away. In fact – and I'm no economist so don't quote me on this – a rise in wages typically encourages higher spending (higher demand) which tends to lead to increased prices unless there are, hmmmm I dunno, rules restricting that. Until then, it seems New Zealanders will continue to flock to Australia where wages really are higher and groceries are expensive but somehow still cheaper than here. Everything is getting more expensive (fun) but the arbiter of the cost of living is butter. A product of the biggest industry in New Zealand and a staple item considered an essential ingredient on any shopping list, butter is virtually unavoidable and the cost of it feels somehow directly tied to our collective mental health. In 2022, one of the most-read articles on The Spinoff all year included the words ' $4 blocks of butter '. The article itself was a fascinating business feature on the expansion of The Warehouse into the supermarket space but I don't think that's why everyone clicked on it. I think everyone clicked on it because they Googled 'cheapest butter nz'. Back then a $4 block of butter was certainly the cheapest but only by a dollar or so. Now, an ad for a $4 block of butter means you're about to have your credit card information stolen. Any time someone dares suggest that New Zealand is a blissful paradise, a raspy voice will remind them that butter is $10. That it costs $50 to buy butter, eggs, milk and a couple of chicken breasts. And these prices are only heading in one direction, with no end in sight. (Willis has since said she's asked Fonterra some questions about the cost of butter and milk. Can't wait to hear the answers!) In the meantime, there's a comfort in calling something a crisis, because a crisis is temporary. A crisis has an end point (even if that end point is really blurry on the horizon and may in fact be a mirage). If the crisis went away but butter was still $10, what are we supposed to do then? Perhaps our mass delusion in believing that someone, anyone, will eventually do something about the cost of living is the real crisis. And if we really are in a crisis, we are well past the point of urgent action and attention. This is just our lives now. A cost of living reality. We're all huddled on the shaky deck of the New Zealand economy, passing around a single durry.
