Ms Tania Simpson Appointed First Woman Chair Of The Waitangi National Trust Board
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
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Dunne's Weekly: Ardern Must Front-Up At Covid19 Inquiry
Phase Two of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the government's response to Covid19 and its effects got underway this week, with the commencement of the hearing of public submissions. According to the Commission chair, Grant Illingworth KC, the focus of this aspect of the inquiry is to hear from the public about their experiences, including the impacts on "social division and isolation, health and education, and business activity.' It will also " hear from experts about the key decisions and their consequences, and lessons to be learned from what happened." There will be a further phase of the inquiry next month, to hear from key decision makers who "led and informed" the government's response to the pandemic. Already there have been calls for former Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern to return from the United States to give evidence to and be cross-examined by the Royal Commission, but it is not yet clear whether she will do so. Current Labour leader, Chris Hipkins was vague when interviewed about whether Ardern would appear, even though he says he met her in London last week. Ardern has subsequently said that she will be happy to 'provide evidence' to the inquiry but she has so far shied clear of confirming that means she is willing to appear in person. As the person who led New Zealand through the pandemic crisis, and received wide international acclaim for her performance, there is no question that Ardern should front up at the New Zealand inquiry. Failure to do so, given the subsequent national division over the pandemic response, would send all the wrong signals, and would diminish the credibility currently attached to her government's overall Covid19 performance. Appearing before the inquiry would be a clear acceptance of public accountability for actions taken in the national interest during a national crisis. She owes it to New Zealanders – her 'team of five million' – to do so. But whether Ardern decides to front or not, there are clear signs that her Labour Party colleagues are not impressed by the public phases of the inquiry now getting underway. They seem clearly uncomfortable with having to explain and justify their actions to an independent Royal Commission. Hipkins has already dismissed the new stages as being designed to 'achieve a particular outcome, particularly around providing a platform for those who have conspiracy theorist views." While he says he will co-operate with the inquiry and answer all the written questions put to him, he would not commit to appearing in person if asked to do so. 'I don't want to see happen … a whole lot of theatrics. I'm very interested in engaging with them on how … we can capture the lessons … [but] the terms of reference are certainly far more political than the first one,' he said. As with Ardern, Hipkins should appear before the inquiry. He was one of the most senior Ministers involved in the then government's response, and will forever be associated with some of its more controversial measures like the MIQ scheme, restrictions on family reunification in stressful circumstances and the ridiculous short-lived suggestion in late 2021 that Aucklanders might have to get prior government permission for the time of day and dates on which they could leave for the summer holidays. Whatever his concerns about the terms of reference, Hipkins, like Ardern, owes it to all those who suffered through MIQ or not being able to join dying loved ones in their final few hours to front up and publicly justify those actions. There is a third person who should similarly be required to front before the Royal Commission and that is the former Director-General of Health, Sir Ashley Bloomfield. Although the former government was ultimately solely responsible for the various decisions taken, many of those decisions were based on advice provided by Bloomfield. Moreover, during the period of the pandemic, Bloomfield enjoyed a level of access to both the Prime Minister and the whole Cabinet that has not been shared by any other public servant in New Zealand's history. The unique nature of his role at that time makes him more accountable for the decisions taken than any other senior public servant would normally be. A key element of Ardern's, Hipkins' and Bloomfield's success during the pandemic was that they all displayed a consistent level of confidence that they were making the right decisions in the best interests of all New Zealanders. That portrayal of confidence played a key role in getting New Zealanders onside and generally complying with the various measures put in place, despite the considerable disruption to their own lives and circumstances. Given that level of unprecedented upheaval and restriction on personal freedom – greater even than wartime – which people went along with because they believed it was for the greater good, it is now far from unreasonable for New Zealanders to expect Ardern, Hipkins and Bloomfield to appear before the Royal Commission to explain their actions in a way that they would not and could not do at the time. Only then will the Royal Commission be sufficiently informed to report on 'lessons to be learned from what happened.'
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Outcry over 'morally bankrupt' call to end government flood buyouts
By Kate Newton of RNZ Phasing out government assistance for climate adaptation and property buy-outs would be "morally bankrupt", a climate policy expert says. An independent reference group set up by the Ministry for the Environment on Wednesday released a suite of recommendations to help the government shape climate adaptation legislation. Following a 20-year transition period, homeowners whose houses are flooded or damaged by weather events should not expect buy-outs, the group recommended. The group also recommended that funding for adaptation measures such as flood schemes, sea walls and blue-green infrastructure, should follow a 'beneficiary pays' approach in most cases. "This would mean those who benefit most from these investments contribute more." Central government should only invest in adaptation if it would protect Crown assets, "or where broader national benefits can be realised". "Central government investment or other financing strategies may be appropriate to help overcome challenges in particularly vulnerable areas, where there is less ability to pay." Victoria University emeritus professor Jonathan Boston, who was part of a previous expert working group on climate adaptation, said the message from the latest report to New Zealanders was clear: "You are on your own." The report rightly recognised the need for urgent action on climate adaptation, and to make consistent, reliable information about climate hazards available, Boston said. However, the recommendations to withdraw financial assistance for both property buy-outs and adaptation measures, and to leave decision-making up to individuals, were "fundamentally flawed". "One of the core responsibilities of any government is to protect its citizens and to deal with natural disasters and so on. That is above almost anything else." To put an end-date on that was "morally bankrupt and highly undesirable", he said. The report wrongly assumed that people would act rationally if they were properly informed of the risks, he said. "We know from vast amounts of literature that people suffer from all kinds of cognitive biases... and that these have a profound influence on whether people make sensible decisions or not. "And quite apart from cognitive bias, lots of people lack choices. They lack the [financial] resources to make good decisions." Boston also criticised the recommendation of a transitional period, saying the risks from climate change would continue to evolve well past 2045 or another hard end-date. He and others had previously warned against the 'moral hazard' of creating expectations of generous property buy-outs every time there was a severe weather event. "We certainly need to be ensuring that we don't create incentives for people to stay in risky areas or indeed to build in areas that are going to become risky because of climate change," he said. "But the idea that you can just sort of leave it to individuals to decide what's going to happen and have no oversight or involvement in helping people to make good decisions and helping people to move where they have to move, I just think it's bizarre." Managed or unmanaged retreat? Environmental Defense Society policy director Raewyn Peart said the report seemed to be moving away from the concept of "managed retreat", where communities moved out of harm's way in a coordinated fashion. "The approach seems to be unmanaged retreat, where we'll give people information and a transition period - they're on notice - and at that point, people can make their own decisions about whether to move or not." That would be unworkable, Peart said. "Some people will move, some won't, councils [will have] to provide services to a community that's gradually emptying out, people there who can't afford to move will be trapped into a risky situation - they may be facing regular floods of their properties. "I just don't think it's in the best interests of the country to essentially leave it to the market and people's individual decisions." The report recommended handing over responsibility for adaptation planning to local councils, but it was unclear whether central government would provide any financial or administrative support, she said. "Some councils are really on to it and are already doing it - they have the resources. It's the small councils who may only have one planner, who have no expertise in adaptation planning." The latest report echoes previous warnings that insurers could increase premiums to unaffordable levels, and even withdraw from some areas, as the risk from climate change hazards continued to increase. Insurance Council chief executive Kris Faafoi - whose organisation has long called for greater national direction from central government on climate adaptation - said it was good to see the report authors recommending urgent action. "There's still some very difficult issues to work through - but these extreme weather events are going to happen, and being able to protect communities and to keep insurance affordable and available is really important in the long-term." There was little appetite anywhere on the political spectrum for expensive buy-outs of properties to continue, he said. The question of who would actually pay for adaptation measures still needed to be answered, Faafoi said. "In the report itself, there was an expectation that councils will do a lot of the heavy lifting and where some communities might find it a challenge to be able to pay for some of the protections … then investment from the Crown might be necessary." But following a 'beneficiary pays' approach could see the costs of adaptation fall heavily on some communities. "I think reading between the lines, there could be the likes of targeted rates in some areas. "Again, that has to be floated with communities and as to whether or not people who benefit from that might be able to pay for that." The report noted the financial difficulties many councils faced. "Funding will be a challenging proposition if councils' ability to increase rates is constrained," the authors wrote. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts told RNZ the government welcomes the independent recommendations for how New Zealand can adapt to the impacts of climate change. "We will now take the time to review recommendations and announce decisions in due course," Watts said. "The report is not government policy, however the Government is considering the group's recommendations, alongside the findings of last year's cross-party climate adaptation inquiry and other advice, as it works to put in place the building blocks for a national adaptation framework."
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Absurd Solar Consent Requirements Driving Up Power Bills
'Central Hawke's Bay's solar farm consent conditions show the absurd demands councils can impose, adding cost, causing delays, and driving up New Zealanders' power bills,' says ACT MP Simon Court. ACT has obtained details of the resource consents for solar farms in Central Hawke's Bay, which include requirements such as: Inviting mana whenua to perform karakia before removing any native trees or plants from the site. Providing written reports every six months until two years after construction is finished, outlining compliance with a 66-page Cultural Impact Assessment—with ongoing reporting beyond that. Submitting a detailed landscaping plan specifying: Every plant's botanical and common name. Exact location, spacing, and planter bag size. Soil preparation methods and planting techniques. The type and quality of materials used for planting like soil, mulch, stakes, and ties. A requirement to replace any dead plant with the same or similar species at the same size. Constructing a ' public viewing area ' with off-street parking, and informational and educational signage. "This is what's driving up your power bill. Councils say they want renewable energy, but then demand ceremonial chanting and spreadsheet-level detail about every shrub on site," says Court. 'One of the companies forced to deal with these absurd demands went bankrupt. How many more projects just never get built at all? 'All this while New Zealanders shiver in the cold, unable to pay their power bills and threatened with blackouts. We need more power generation, whatever form that takes. That requires freedom to build, and ditching this rubbish. 'We see the same thing happening with supermarkets, IKEA, even hospitals. This madness raises prices at the checkout and on power bills. 'We should be rolling out the welcome mat for anyone who wants to deliver more, cheaper power. Instead, we're burying them in demands based on metaphysical concepts and box-ticking reports. 'That's why ACT is committed to scrapping the beast that is the RMA and replacing it with a system based on property rights, without a general Treaty principles clause so we can build the things we need to make our lives better and more affordable.' The Resource Consent for the Centralines Limited project could power roughly 7,500 homes per year. Consent here. The Resource Consent for the Skysolar Limited (now in liquidation) project would power 18,000 homes per year. Consent here.
