Smear Job: Tania Martin

Here’s the report of the police investigation that ROBIN WHANGA initiated, with the full assistance of TUKU MORGAN, TE ARATAURA, and CHAPMANN TRIP -paid for in full by the people of the Waikato Iwi.

The whole aim of this outrageous exercise was to lay BASELESS allegations which were not supported by any facts, against Tania Martin because she dared question the excessive spending done by Tuku and his Te Arataura mob.

Yet another example of what is wrong at ‘Tainui’ when a few criminals abuse the resources of the entire tribe in an effort to destroy one person.

1 Harris St Huntly
Re: Police File No: 110707/9898
Re Complaint into Financial Mismanagement at Hiona Marae

Dear Sir

On 6 May 2011 you met with Detective Inspector PACE and discussed with him a complaint that you had in respect of alleged financial mismanagement by those involved with the affairs of the Hiona Marae. However, it is clear that the subject of this complaint is at Ms Tania Martin who I understand was the former chair of Te Kauhanganui (Waikato Tainui Parliament) and who has been somewhat outspoken in relation to some matters within the Kingitanga and in particular she has been critical of spending within Te Arataura the parliament’s executive board.

Ms Martin is the representative of the Hiona Marae.

In addition after that meeting you subsequently provided a box of documents to the Police which were relevant to this complaint.

Whilst I am aware that there is a background of political dispute that has some bearing on these matters I signal that that has had no significance in terms of any assessment and review of the complaint. .

This office was tasked with reviewing the material provided to see whether any criminality could be identified or established and, if so, whether any investigation by the Police was justified particularly as the matters complained off had occurred some considerable time ago. The matter was referred to this office as we deal with serious and complex fraud matters and are specialist investigators in that field. Having reviewed the material provided, I can say that the matters raised are not ones that would normally be serious enough for this office to investigate. However, I considered it prudent that I deal with this matter instead of passing it back to another office.

I have therefore carefully reviewed the material and my findings outlined below in some detail. I have done this to assist you in understanding the reasons for my findings.

In respect of the issues raised an audit was completed by lawyers from Chapmann Tripp in January 2011. As part of that review they produced a memorandum dated January 2011 that summarised their findings.

That report identified three possible areas of interest in relation to possible financial mismanagement that were all historic in nature. Chapmann Tripp were correct in identifying specific instances because when we are considering whether the intervention of the criminal law is an appropriate response, we have to focus on specific events and establish whether there is evidence, to the high standard required for a prosecution, available in respect of those specific matters.

I shall now deal with each of the issues raised.

1. Marae Lights:

The first matter referred to dated back to around 1995 or 1996 when marae funding was obtained to purchase lights and fans from the Te Awamutu College and it was alleged that they had never arrived at the marae although the money was paid out. The memorandum prepared by Chapmann Tripp is really a definitive document when considering whether the Police should have any interest in this matter.

The memorandum dated 27 January 2011 outlines the investigations carried out in relation to this issue.

That investigation clearly establishes that this is not a matter in which the Police should have any interest. Quite clearly this matter, and how it was subsequently resolved, is recorded in the relevant committee meeting minutes for the Hiona Marae. I have determined from perusing the documents that there is no criminality involved.

The minutes of the Hiona Marae Committee of 11 August 1996 record the resolution of this matter namely that the money originally paid out for the lights had subsequently been returned. There is not reason to doubt the explanation that was provided and financial records that would provide the definitive answer are no longer available through the passage of time.

There may well have been procedural deficiencies with how the matter was dealt with but those are not an issue that the Police can concern themselves with.

In any event it is hard to understand how this matter in any way reflects poorly on Ms Martin.

2. Housie Sessions:

The second matter that appears to be complained of relates to a number of serious anomalies that occurred in a housie session run at the marae that was attended by an Officer from the Department of Internal Affairs. Again this dates back to April 1997 and this matter is outlined in the documents identified by Chapmann Tripp that relate to this matter.

In short, the attending Officer from the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) noted some matters of concern with the way the housie session was being run and these concerns were duly brought to the attention of the marae housie committee by the DIA. That was in the form of a letter written to Mrs R. KATIPA on 2 April 1997. I also note that the Senior Inspector for Gaming Compliance held a meeting with relevant representatives from the marae on 2 April 1997.

The outcome of this is that this matter was addressed by the appropriate authority, being the DIA. If they had deemed this matter was worthy of prosecution then they would have taken such action. In any event, this matter appears to have been resolved by the DIA outlining to the marae committee various deficiencies with the way that they were running matters and by the marae presumably modifying their procedures going forward. This is not a matter that should involve the Police as the DIA manage their own affairs and prosecute where they deem it appropriate to do so.

Once again though it is hard to understand how any undue reference in respect of this issue can be drawn against  Ms Martin.

3. Cheque for $8,800 drawn on a Hiona Marae account:

The third matter that appears to be being complained about dates back to March 1999 when a cheque for $8,880.00 was drawn on a Westpac account of the TE ROOPU RANGATAHI O HIIONA committee which is associated to the HIONA MARAE.

This cheque was drawn on 22 February 1999 by Diane Barbarich. This cheque was drawn a week after the annual general meeting for this committee and the cheque was signed by both Diane Barbarich and Mariana Whanga. In brief it appears that at the time of signing the cheque, Ms Barbarich was no longer a signatory to that account as a result of the aforementioned AGM.

On a first look it certainly appears that there was some evidence of fraud by Ms Barbarich and the question that would have to be asked is whether there was any legitimate or innocent explanation for her actions.

I understand that Ms Barbarich is your daughter and I believe Ms Whanga is also related.

However, in March 1999 Mr Craig Coxhead, a lawyer acting for the marae, wrote to Ms Barbarich and outlined that in his opinion that she was not entitled to withdraw the $8,880.00 and that this was a matter that, in his view, should be referred to the Police. He advised that he had recommended this to the marae committee but the marae committee had adopted the view that they would prefer to sort the matter out in- house. Under those circumstances, Ms Barbarich and Ms Whanga were given 12 days to return the $8,880.00 to the relevant bank account. The letter records that if the money was returned in full then the matter would be at an end and that if it was not returned, then the matter would be reported to the Police.

The correspondence relating to this matter finishes there and it is unclear as to the final resolution of the matter because there in no document provided that outlines that final resolution. On the basis of the information supplied it is unknown whether the money was actually returned. However, it seems clear that no formal report was made to the Police and therefore the assumption is drawn that the money was returned within the timeframe outlined.

I have checked our computer records and can find no record of any complaint having been made in respect of this matter. This would support the above assumption that this matter was resolved in house.

The reality is, however, that it would now be very difficult to re-visit this matter due to the passage of time. This matter occurred in 1999 and we are now in 2011 and essential records held by the bank that would be necessary to prove this matter evidentially are no longer in existence. In any event it would now be grossly unfair to the various parties involved to try and revisit this matter after a clear time-frame for resolution was given back in 1999. It would not receive favorable commentary from the judiciary. A Police investigation at that time may well have been the most appropriate course but in 2011 this option is simply not realistic..

For the purpose of clarity I also signal that I have also read the email of 25 March 2011 from Ms Martin in which she outlines her recollection of events. She is off the view that they never found out where the money went but the decision was made to resolve the matter internally and effectively the money was written off by the trustees as a lesson learnt.

Once again, as with the other issues discussed, there is nothing in this matter which gives any indication of wrong doing by Ms Martin.

Whilst over 10 years later there may still be dissatisfaction with the way this matter was resolved dissatisfaction is not a basis on which the Police can initiate a criminal investigation.

4. Other Matters

There are a number of other issues and allegations raised in the material that I have read. However, from a police perspective they have little substance as they mainly relate to internal disputes and procedural complaints about the affairs of the marae. There is a strong undercurrent of internal politics in those complaints and that is for the trustees and others to sort out. This is simply not something that the Police as an apolitical organisation can become involved with

5. Conclusion:

I have to advise that as a result of a careful review of the issues raised there is no basis on which the Police could be justified in pursuing an investigation into the matters that have been raised. There is simply no evidential basis to support any allegation of theft or fraud against Ms Martin.

As with all matters reported to the Police a record of this complaint has been kept. It has been assigned the file number as referenced at the top of this letter. I add that this file has simply been recorded in the miscellaneous category. It has not been recorded as an offence because I wish to emphasise that no evidence of criminality has been established against the individual (Ms Martin) who appears to be the subject of this complaint.

I have had some brief discussions with Ms Martin about the subject matter of this complaint and I have also written to her advising her of the outcome of inquiries to this matter . Ms Martin was aware from correspondence she had received from members of Tainui that a complaint has been made against her and that she was the subject of a "police investigation’

 In order to be completely fair and so that there can be no misunderstanding as to the findings of this review I have provided her with a copy of this letter so that both sides to this dispute can be absolutely clear about the position the Police have reached in respect of this matter.

This matter is now at an end from the Police perspective.

Your documents are enclosed and returned.

If you have any queries re this matter please do not hesitate to contact the writer directly on (07) 8566901 or via email at simon.eckerslev:a police. Govt. nz.

Yours faithfully

Simon Eckersley
Waikato Corporate Fraud


16 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. mmb33
    Aug 29, 2011 @ 07:23:05

    You need to get yr facts right in this pathetic forum. There is no credibility to the information you provide, it wouldn’t suprise me if you were involved in the fraud that you accuse others of.
    And I am aware that you are apart of the Tania Martin scheme. Until I meet you, I hope your just as motivated in person rather than hide behind this pathetic forum. You have been disclosed.


  2. Tainui on the Web. Eraka's Blog
    Aug 29, 2011 @ 08:19:22

    Ha! If I’m involved in the ‘Fraud’, go tell that to the Fraud Police! 😀

    Oh! You disclosed us! 😉


  3. Tainui on the Web. Eraka's Blog
    Aug 29, 2011 @ 08:45:54

    mmb33, if it worries you that we are being mean to your idol Tuku Morgan and his Te Arataura mates… please go ahead and tell us WHY you say that we have no credibility. 🙂


  4. Ezekiel
    Aug 29, 2011 @ 11:44:59

    Oh mmb33, you are small fry whose left brain has no idea what yr right brain is thinking. Are you implying that the Police are lying about the $8800.00 theft linked to Robin’s sister & daughter!! Please refrain from insulting our intellect, you are wasting time & space with yr nonsense.


  5. Mathis Kara
    Aug 30, 2011 @ 14:57:03

    @ mmb33, a blog is a blog, but a great way to test perception. The way I see it, the trend on this blog is consistent with what’s really happening at the tribal front, so get a grip. This blog seems to have a lot of people saying the same thing. Need I say more?


  6. whanau observer
    Aug 31, 2011 @ 10:00:14

    How do you remedy the open public spats between te arataura and te kauhanganui given tribal interests are available as media sound bites across our nation?

    Ms Martin our current chair has signalled the need to amend conflicting constitutional matters, the contested rules at hand have remained largely undefined and ambiguous until now, congratulations your on track to cleaning up unresolved past business matters.

    According to Mr Roa (Waikato times 30/08/11) “we are not willing to trust each other we have to rely on black and white rules to define ourselves”, in essence contracting ourselves to those same rules?

    …That te kauhanganui members spent so much time wrestling with the interpretations resulted in mixed messages across the board. The statement suggests their communication lines were down… I think is a political understatement!

    Sort it out at whanau… @ $75,000 per meeting you must make solid business decisions, endeavour to cut back on business waste e.g. risks/mistakes.

    Past chairs must have known just how much latitude there was in the interpretation of the constitutional rule, the same rules which should have strengthened us as a tribal unit instead it has divided us further?

    My question remains what is at the heart of administration? While Waikato Tainui whanau in many respects remain vocal and divided some whanau like Mr Morgan have achieved prominence by being vocal to the point of creating new dividing lines which will likely set the pace of future directions unless we sort this out now.

    Te kauhanganui need to know where they stand so they can plan future business affairs with some assurance that they won’t run into legal snares (products of past neglect) the founders should have set up platforms and reliable guidelines for todays governnance body to build upon in that respect.


  7. Ezekiel
    Aug 31, 2011 @ 13:29:59

    Whanau Observer – so are you saying that Te Kauhaunganui chair maintain her current stance of educating the members on due diligence and correct application of process by empowering them with the rules? if so kia ora!!


    • whanau observer
      Sep 01, 2011 @ 08:42:10

      More precisely it is in the best interest for Waikato-Tainui that te kauhanganui are inducted into a comprehensive programme on best practice principles at the begining of their tenure in our parliament.

      I state this because of the implications Mr Roa alluded to in the Waikato Times 30/08/11 suggesting te kauhanganui members were creating delays by their lack of process and knowledge around our parlimentary procedures hence the continual pay out of $75,000 per hui?

      Mr Roa a former Chair of te kauhanganui, I believe, has pointed out some major discrepancies/flaws? Some of our parlimentary members need to upskill themselves so they may become better informed (due diligence) with our parliamentary etiquette, the standing rules, and how to apply them correctly!

      Part of the role of our current Chair is to maintain/manage/exercise the responsibilities that come with the position! The Chair determines how the rules are applied and interpreted in accordance with the best available information/ precedence.

      Through the application of this process our representatives aquire the necessary acumen to participate fully in our parliament.

      When members repeatedly disregard the Chairs instruction she has the option of removing said member(s) until apologies are given and assurances recieved that the required behavioural standard will be adhered too.

      Continual disregard of this tikanga, empowers the Chair to act accordingly. I think its time to insist our parliament in total take a refresher course!…kia ora


  8. Ezekiel
    Sep 02, 2011 @ 01:49:37

    Ae, tika tonu tou korero. As such, Te A members are hugely threatened by an educated and empowered TKI & would not like to see that happen, as is former chair Tom Roa as reflected in his incredibly one-sided, misleading comment in the Times. What he failed to mention was the amount of litigation fees forcibly paid out by the tribe to the legal reps of Te A in misrepresenting and stifling the progress of the review (which still hasnt started) and the need to hold extra meetings because TeA deliberately used stalling tatics to prevent mtgs from happening in the first place. It is also very concerning to all of us of the conflicting role Te A’s legal reps have, as I understand it, they provide legal advice to both TKI &Te A. The most concerning aspect however is that Tuku is still delusionally passing himself off as chair, chief negotiator, tribal leader and mangai of Waikato-Tainui…absolutely mind boggling.


    • whanau observer
      Sep 02, 2011 @ 10:28:17

      In my opinion to be an effective member of our parliament requires some foreward planning (know what you want to achieve) and a solid understanding of house rules and procedures. A successful member is one who takes ownership of the rules – its about making them work for you – rather than the reverse (erakas description the tail wags the dog)!

      Once a member knows how standing orders work they’re able to conduct our parliamentary business free from court/legal interference (current practice of our sub-committee) te arataura.

      Any legal advice sought/or provided to the client(s) te arataura sub-committee or te kauhanganui parliament must carefully consider whether it trangresses iwi interests.

      Contempt of House – when an allegation is made that a member deliberately acted against the house itself (te kauhanganui) and is proved correct the Chair plays no role – proceedings go before the courts…kia ora


  9. unhappy Tainui beneficiary
    Sep 02, 2011 @ 16:10:59

    Fantastic discussion


    • whanau observer
      Sep 03, 2011 @ 10:32:02

      Mrs Martin is the constitutionally elected head of Te Kauhanganui – our Parliament – contrary to the media hype supported by sub committee chair Mr Morgan Waikato Times 03/09/11.

      Reaffirming Mrs Martin’s position is very important to how Waikato-Tainui interpret the events currently being played out by our whanau across all forms of mainstream media.

      When we loose our perspective of this basic truth, there is a tendency to become lost in the storm of issues unfolding before us. Hold fast to the basics, in this way you will know your Tuurangawaewae – your place to stand!
      This conversation leads to another matter of relevance which gives substance to understanding the responsibility that comes with being the Chair of our Parliament.

      Mrs Martin Chair of our Parliament vs. sub committee te arataura members: Mr Morgan, Mr Joe, Mrs Te Ao, Mrs Schaafhausen, Mr Porima, Mr Wilson, Mr Papa, Mr Maipi, Mrs Tuwhangai.

      Quote… Judge Dobson replying to proceedings:”[37] In the end, Te Arataura has indicated that it wished the issue of costs to be resolved by Court order, and I am satisfied that Mrs Martin is entitled to costs on an indemnity basis for the costs of and incidental to the proceedings, including her costs on the dispute in relation to costs. Those were quantified, at the time of Mr Brant’s submissions in support of the costs claim, at $26,755.54, and $10,126.13”.

      In my opinion there are underlying issues – separate to the fact that these costs have still not been met (refer full reading)! Here are 3 of them up for discussion.
      The named sub committee chose to settle this in court rather than resolve it in-house, this act was done to – break our Chair financially – and ensure the unfettered continuation of: use/misuse/abuse of Waikato Tainui funds. Yet to be proven fully – as financials have not been made available for scrutiny!
      The named sub committee chose to involve kiingi Tuheitia in matters which clearly impinged on his ability to remain impartial, and therefore the consequent divisions amongst Waikato Tainui make it that much more difficult to resolve in-house when they occur.

      Mrs Martin must take heed of Judge Dobson’s deliberation with regards to “due process” in my view this signals his preference for all the ‘I’s and ‘T’s to be actioned prior to commencement of any future court dealings. The next Judge may not be as understanding.

      This is our constitutionally elected Chair of Te kauhanganui – we have a choice to support the Chair – we know what to do if we want to help improve our future, participate.


  10. Rongo Taima
    Sep 03, 2011 @ 01:14:42

    mmb33, you sund jus like cuz Marise Marietta Bishop.
    Is that you, cuz?

    Hopin’ you’se not part of the scheme what takes from us workin’ folk to enrich themselves!


  11. Mathis Kara
    Sep 03, 2011 @ 15:22:40

    @ whanau observer and ezekiel, great discussion. Just a point on interpretations of the rules, the chairman’s interpretation is the one that counts at the end of the day the chairman makes a ruling and that’s that. Way I see it Tuku Morgan is out and good riddance. His arrogance on TV is no good for the tribe and no good for Maori. If he doesn’t listen this time and goes to the next meeting then the chairman can even bring in the police. Another thing If Arataura is creating disorder just to stop the members from getting on with the business than they should be sacked from the meeting.,I think Tom Roa the previous chair should be the last one to talk about trust. Who can trust him anymore? I heard he bailed because it got too hot in the kitchen. Way I see it he’s the last one that should be talking about communication breakdowns. Let’s face it the man failed to do what Tania is doing now. If I was him I’d shut up and just get in there and support her. After all she did inherit his failures. My wife and I just returned home from living in Perth for years. Tania has a big following there. My wife and kids are Waikato but I’m Tuhoe and Tania has a big following there too so she must be doing something right.


  12. Arena Whanga
    Apr 21, 2013 @ 12:40:51

    Well! Lets face it everyone? Firstly here is a women who is strong, a women who trying to do the job, a women who got guts to stand up for what right and wrong! face it! she was only vote on the chair to do the job? BUT! when Tania found a error? HELLO!! smell the roses everyone? So go hard! Tania, FIRST WOMEN WHO’S GOT GUTS TO STAND UP.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: