and I don't wish to retry the Tamihere case here, Today on Newshub Nation ` as Auckland Council announces plans to count the city's homeless, We ask Minister Phil Twyford about progress on the emergency winter housing he promised. Plus, we talk to prison inmate Arthur Taylor about the use of jailhouse informants after his successful perjury prosecution against another prisoner who lied in court. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 Kia Ora, good morning. I am Lisa Owen. Welcome to Newshub Nation. Auckland Council has just announced plans to count the number of homeless in the city around six weeks after the Government said it would create an extra 1500 social housing places by the end of Winter. Now that's one of a number of ambitious targets for Housing Minister Phil Twyford. There's also the small matter of constructing 1000 KiwiBuild homes this year and 100,000 over the next decade. Phil Twyford joins me now. Good morning, Lisa. Good morning. Your target, 1000 homes within a year, 100,000 in 10 years, you need to ramp things up. So, you've talked about pre-fabrication in the past; how are you going to use that industry? Well, you know, off-site manufacturing, or modern pre-fab, offers us a fantastic opportunity to tackle some of the very real obstacles and capacity restraints that we've inherited to build up the numbers. And so I'm really happy to announce today that cabinet has agreed that the government will formally invite expressions of interest from construction firms and investors, both internationally and in New Zealand, on how we can work together to establish a modern off-site manufacturing house building industry in New Zealand. So you're asking them to put their hands up if they're interested in pre-fabricating KiwiBuild houses, at what scale? Well, scales the critical thing here. And that's the wonderful opportunity that KiwiBuild offers. We can contract work, 1000s of houses a year over multiple years to firms, that can scale up. You know, one of the very real problems we've got is the high cost of building. Build costs have gone up by 30% over the last decade and at the moment they're running at three times the rate of inflation. The international benchmark for off-site manufacturing of houses can deliver a build cost of $1200 per square metre; that's half of what were achieving in New Zealand at the moment. So this is a wonderful opportunity. And we've had discussions with investors both here and abroad, people like Tex Edwards, the entrepreneur behind 2degrees. He's now very focussed on how we can shake up the construction industry in a similar way to what they did with the telecommunications industry; and off-site manufacturing is the big opportunity. Ok, so there's a couple of things there. First, what percentage of KiwiBuild houses do you anticipate would be made by prefabrication or off-site construction? Cant really put a number on that at the moment. Its going to take a few years before we could, for example, working with the private sector, establish a factory at scale to do this. In the meantime, were getting on with building houses in the traditional way. But I would hope within a few years when we've ramped up to 10,000 or 12,000 a year, a substantial proportion of that would be built in a factory using high-tech, high-precision gear. So more than half? I would hope so, Lisa. But its very early days to be putting a number on that. Ok, well, you mentioned finance and investment there, because it is very difficult for first homebuyers to get mortgages for pre-fab houses. So how would this work? Would the government underwrite pre-fabricated houses, essentially pre-buy them and then on sell them to first home buyers? Or how would it work? That's certainly how it could work. But when were building we've got, for instance, the state house building programme, we've got KiwiBuild houses. The idea is to bundle up that supply and then contract that work, in much larger numbers than we've ever been able to do in New Zealand, to firms that can deliver at the kind of scale and pace and cost that we want. So you might not underwrite? You might ask investors to put all the money up-front, pay for the pre-fabrication and then on sell them so that first homebuyers don't have to get a pre-fab mortgage, as such? That's right; it could quite possibly work that way. Its the scale of the orders, the amount of houses, that's the thing that we've never had in New Zealand. And if we were to contract work, lets say 3000 houses a year every year for five years, what the investors and the private sector tell us, is that that would give a firm the confidence and the ability to invest in the plant and the technology. So you would give them an up-front contract so they could afford to invest and expand, you would tell them how many houses they're going to get? Yes, that's what were thinking. But you don't know how many houses you're talking about just yet? No, its too early days. But the government now wants to have a conversation with investors about exactly how we can work together to build this capacity. There are already some great firms in New Zealand, very entrepreneurial firms, who are doing pre-fab, high-tech, modern pre-fab already. So how serious are the conversations you've been having and who are they with? Which investors are keen to actually put money down? I don't think it would be fair for me to talk about specific investors now. But we have had some serious conversations, and they're ongoing. Ok, well, let's talk about one investor you might be prepared to mention. The Super Fund has been interested in infrastructure, they're interested in rail. Are they interested in KiwiBuild? Yes, they are, Super Fund have been in discussions with us. And the Super Fund, they recently spent some time in Europe with some other interested investors, visiting some of the worlds biggest off-site manufacturing house building companies. Ok, so you would be interested in considering the Super Fund as an investor in KiwiBuild? Absolutely. But were open to talking with everybody about this, Lisa. And its not an exclusive thing. But we welcome the Super Funds interest. All right, well, pre-fabricated houses, they still need land, and that's one of your big problems. Half of these KiwiBuild houses are supposed to be in Auckland. So where is that land for your pre-fabricated houses? So, one of the ways that were going deliver KiwiBuild is through large-scale urban development projects. And you know recently we announced the purchase of 29 hectares of land at the Unitec block in Mt Albert. So that's one. You said when we spoke about it you would like up to ten developments of that size. So where are the nine other ones? So, were working on that now. The KiwiBuild unit which was established within the Ministry of Building Innovation and Employment, that's the embryo of the urban development authority that we hope to establish next year. That's already doing this work and identifying a number of sites. And well be announcing some of those sites in the coming weeks and months` Weeks? Weeks, you say? Yeah, were working closely with Panuku ` Auckland Councils development agency. Its part of a strategy to really do some large-scale urban intensification projects in Auckland. OK, so how many of those sites have you identified in the Auckland area on a shortlist? There are about eight major sites in Auckland that were doing due diligence on at the moment. And in the coming weeks and months, well be announcing those. Would you consider them central sites? You were very clear about the fact that Unitec` When you were dropping clues about Unitec, you said it was a central Auckland site. I mean, proximity, these sites? The most important thing, actually, is really good transport connections. And we want to build off the big investments in the rail network of recent years. The critical thing is to build these urban communities with really good transport connections. Okay, well, you had called for expressions of interest from private developers who were doing apartments and multi-unit dwellings. You've told us that you've got about 100 proposals from developers. How many are likely to go ahead? I cant say that at the moment. The team are working through all those proposals and casting a beady eye over them to look at the commercial viability, the quality of the projects, and so on. I'm very confident, though, that the buying off the plans programme is going to deliver several hundred KiwiBuild homes in the first year of the programme from July 1. Timeframe for announcing which of those people you're going with, if any? Within the next few weeks, well be making announcements about specific projects, locations and numbers of homes. Okay, David Parker said this week that the Governments going to adopt this select committee recommendation to relax foreign buyer rules. So I'm curious about this. Because does that mean that the Government could be underwriting apartment buildings where some units are KiwiBuild and going to be sold as KiwiBuild and others are just going to be sold off potentially to foreign buyers? Well, the first thing I would say is that the Bill that's before the Parliament at the moment is designed to encourage offshore investment in new developments and new building. That's always been our intent. But yes, KiwiBuild investment through the buying off the plans programme could be underwriting or buying off the plans KiwiBuild homes in, say, a large-scale development that is also supported by foreign direct investment. And are you happy for that to happen? Very happy. You would be underwriting projects where a significant chunk of them would be going to offshore buyers. So, we want foreign direct investment in new builds. That's always been our position. Okay. So the first 18 KiwiBuild homes in Papakura ` they're due to be ready in August. Are they on track? Yes, they are. And my hope is that, Lisa, well have families moving in in October into those homes. Okay. So have they been sold? No, not as yet. How many people are interested? And when do you start that process? So, on July 1 ` in that first week of the KiwiBuild programme ` were going to be setting up a whole process for people to pre-register for these homes. And as we've discussed before, we expect that in the early years of the KiwiBuild programme, people will go into a ballot. Were expecting there'll be a lot more demand than` So around July 1, you'll be giving us those details about how they do it? That's right. Okay. You have said that no one needs to sleep in their cars this winter. And in May, you promised to secure 1500 new social housing places before the end of winter. How are you tracking? How many of those 1500 are available right now? Yeah, so a little more than half are available right now. We've made really good progress with the emergency and transitional housing ` that's the core of that commitment. This is fixed term, short term housing with services to` So are you confident you're going to make the 1500 by the end of winter? Yes, I am. Yes. Okay. What about longer term solutions? Because under the previous government, community housing groups could apply for up to 50% of the money upfront to build social housing units. Is Labour going to honour that proposal? Yeah. The first thing I want to say is that its very important that we build a really good safety net to house the homeless, but we have to build` the real solution here, the long-term sustainable solution is to` Are you going to honour` ...build more permanent public housing. And so were committed to working with the community housing sector. And in the Budget, we announced that were investing about $4 billion in the building of a net additional 6400 new public houses over the next four years. I'm asking about the mechanism specifically, because were being told by community housing groups that they're in limbo at the moment under this proposal. That they put forward all these proposals, and they're now hearing noises that maybe you are not going to honour that capital contribution upfront, and that they're potentially being told to go and find private equity partners. Is that right? We are going to continue to work with the community housing sector. So of the 1600 additional homes a year, Housing New Zealand will be building at least 1000 of those. But I expect that most of the other 600 homes a year will be built by the community housing sector. Were going to continue to do what the previous government did, which is to provide a commitment of the income-related rent subsidy ` that's the amount between` Yes. So you're going to do it? Yeah. Between the social rent and the market rent. An upfront commitment with a premium on top of that that will help the community housing providers, who are doing fantastic work, to continue to build new homes. I'm sure they'll be pleased to hear that. The other issue is that the schedule of pricing for those properties` You, yourself, have raised the price of a three-bedroom KiwiBuild property 50 grand to $650,000 in Auckland. These community housing groups are expected to build three-bedroom houses for $615,000. Are you going to have to revise that figure? Because you can't build for that price. Do you expect them to build for that price? Yeah, one of the problems that we've got is that build costs have been going up so steeply. So the negotiations with the community housing providers are ongoing. We want them to do more` So you'll review the number? You'll review the $615,000? Look, I'm happy to take advice from my officials and relook at that. But I` Lisa, let me say this, we want the community housing providers to do more. Iwi, local councils ` they want to do more, but they lack access to capital. And I'm working on ways that we can create new sources of investment for those organisations. All right. Well, come back and tell us about that sometime soon. Do stay with us, up next, we look at the use of prison informants, and ask so-called jailhouse lawyer Arthur Taylor if his crusade against him is motivated by self-interest or genuine concern for our criminal justice system. Welcome back. Double murderer David Tamihere is adamant that lies told by a jailhouse snitch helped send him to prison for 20 years. The snitch was Roberto Conchie Harris, and the lie that Tamihere confessed to killing two Swedish backpackers in 1989. Well, last year, Harris was found guilty of perjury following a groundbreaking private prosecution brought by prison inmate Arthur Taylor. This week I spoke to Taylor about his fight against the use of jailhouse informants. Now we'll bring you that interview next. But first, here's Mike Wesley Smith on the murder case that started it all. Swedish couple Sven Urban Hoglin and Heidi Birgitta Paakkonen disappeared while tramping in the Coromandel in 1989. The resulting police investigation led to David Tamihere's home, where the victim's car and keys were fond along with a poncho said to belong to Miss Paakonen. That evidence was bolstered by a crucial witness sighting. 'Two trampers who claim they saw the Tamihere near the scene were Heidi Paakkonen and Urban Hoglin were allegedly murdered. The trampers said they'd seen Tamihere with a woman similar to Miss Paakkonen. But there were problems with their evidence. I think that there's a very real risk here that David Tamihere has been incorrectly identified by the two crucial crown witnesses. But their evidence was ruled admissible after a corroborating statement from a prison inmate known as Witness C. NEWSREADER: It will be a long trial, possibly seven weeks, and an unusual one. The bodies of the Swedish tourists have never been found. The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including statements from three prison inmates, who claimed Tamihere told them he'd killed the couple. Witness C was later revealed to be convicted double-murderer Roberto Conchie Harris. Tamihere was convicted in December 1990. 10 months later, Mr Hoglin's body was discovered, and new evidence contradicted the jailhouse informant's claims. The head lay backwards this way, and laid back with the feet into the bushes south. Then Harris changed his story. In 1995, he told David Tamihere's brother John that he wanted to recant his trial evidence. A reversal he repeated to the media. You've got no doubts about his innocence? No. I've no doubts at all. Harris said a detective offered him $100,000 to implicate Tamihere. A claim that led to an investigation by the independent police conduct authority. But then Harris decided to stick by his original evidence, saying he only backed down because of threats from other inmates. And you believe him? We accept that, yes. But Harris wasn't finished. In June 2007, he wrote to David Tamihere to tell him his trial evidence was false and then changed his mind again. And that was when Arthur Taylor came along. In 2017, Taylor brought a private prosecution against Harris, saying he committed perjury at Tamihere's original trial, a charge Harris denied. When he gave his evidence there's only about two things that I would go along with, was his name and the fact that we had actually met each other in prison. In October 2017, Harris was convicted on 8 perjury charges. Your perjury is a brazen assault on the foundation of our criminal justice system. Harris received 8 years and 9 months in jail, a sentence he is appealing Meanwhile, David Tamihere hopes the perjury conviction will help his own exoneration bid. Will you ever stop on that? No. Not until they bury me, I suppose. While Arthur Taylor told me he'd never met David Tamihere when he decided to prosecute Roberto Conchie Harris for perjury. Harris was one of three jailhouse informants known for many years as Witnesses A, B and C, because their identities were all suppressed. Taylor calls them secret witnesses, but I put it to him that they weren't secret at all, because during the trial the jury knew who they were and that they were prisoners. But the jury didn't have a clue about a lot of their background. I mean, we now know that when Harris was originally arrested for the double murder, he actually got life in prison for it back in 1983. But he tried to blame another guy, Herbert, right? So right from the word go, he had been telling lies and putting the blame on other people. Well, we know now that none of that disclosure was made available to the defence. You know, and if you read the cross-examination of Harris, you will see that they have got no information about him whatsoever. So the jury knew he was a prisoner, though, because just the very nature of the evidence that he gave and the others gave was that they met David Tamihere because he was either in the cell next to them or they mixed with him in the prison. So everybody on that jury knew that these three witnesses were prisoners. Absolutely, they knew that. But the jury are just ordinary people that are off the street. They have not got the particulars. See, jailhouse witnesses are in a category of their own. First of all, they are in the power of the state. Second, they have got very little bargaining power, being prisoners. Third, they have always got extensive criminal records, including lengthy history of dishonesty. They are trying to better their position. What motivates them ` they are not your usual civic-minded citizen that comes forward and gives evidence about a crime they may have seen on the street; they are out to improve their lot. Their first primary consideration is them, number one. And they will do anything to get that way. The juries are not equipped` Your average jury member is not equipped to deal with that sort of stuff, you see. And, of course, another major problem is that there is all sorts of drama generally surrounds the production. Like, I have seen them in court myself. The sniper's on the courtroom roof. The courtroom blinds are closed. There is all sorts of drama. They are brought into court between two armed detectives, usually ` diplomatic protection squad, actually. I have never seen that. Are you being a bit melodramatic? I have never seen a sniper on the roof of court. I have never seen anyone escorted by an armed diplomatic protection squad person. Well, have you been to these secret witness trials? I was present when this witness was in court. Well, I can assure you that I've seen it myself in the Auckland High Court. Okay. And I can tell you off-camera the names and the details of the case. But you're saying that this drama does what? Well, it creates a preconception in the mind of the jury as a starting point. I mean, we're all influenced by what we see initially. It creates ` 'Oh, well, the state can't` The police believe everything this guy's saying. They must have checked his story out real thoroughly. This guy's here. We can believe him.' You know? And if the defence don't do their job because they haven't got all the information relating to these people, well, the jury's left completely with the wrong impression. Okay. Well, the very nature of a jury's job is to decide which witnesses are telling the truth and which aren't. So we trust them to make that decision with every other type of witness, and judges give them very strong instructions about that. I don't understand why we can't trust them to make that same kind of assessment about who is a liar and who is not just because it is a jailhouse informant. Well, they're making these judgements. First of all, they're not provided with all the information. They're not provided with information about the inducements and other things a witness may be acting under. I can tell you right now ` I have studied since I got involved in looking at the secret witnesses, and from my own personal experience of having them give evidence against me, they are never, ever motivated by the public interest; it's always number one; they've always got lengthy histories of dishonesty; and they always go on to reoffend when they're eventually released from prison after having given evidence, and I can tell you of many cases ` chapter and verse. Okay, we'll get on to that in a minute, but in this particular case, the David Tamihere murder trial, the judge gave clear instructions. He said to the jury, 'You must treat with care evidence from persons who may normally not be regarded 'as reliable witnesses.' In reference to these jailhouse informants, he said, 'If you conclude one or more is unreliable, disregard it, put it completely to one side.' And he also said, very importantly, 'On their own or even together, you would not take those statements', meaning the statements of the secret witnesses, as you call them, 'as proof of murder'. The judge could not have been any clearer than that. Absolutely. But did the jury take it on board? Did the defence couns`? And I've studied, obviously, the evidence and the cross-examination of the Tamihere trial, and I can assure you that they weren't asked the questions they should have been asked if the defence had had proper information about these people. I mean, let's be quite frank, the police obviously don't like calling them. They're a last resort. You think of the cases that we know they've been called in. Right? The Scott Watson case, for instance, the Stephen Hudson case ` all cases where the evidence is weak or there's no bodies, things like that. They're only called as a last resort, so why are the police calling them? Because they need them there to prop up their case. They wouldn't be called on if their evidence wasn't considered important. All right. So, there were a raft of witnesses in the Tamihere trial ` trampers, eyewitnesses, shop owners, hairdressers. A ton of people gave evidence. How significant was the testimony of the jailhouse informants, and specifically Harris' testimony? Okay. Well, anyone that knows anything about the Swede murder case, right, knows that crucial evidence ` and Justice Whata in his sentencing of Harrison noted this ` the evidence of the two trampers` Now, initially, the trial judge, Justice Tompkins, ruled that evidence inadmissible. He said it was unreliable, couldn't be relied on. The Court of Appeal, in their wisdom, let it back in. Now, one of the linchpins the Court of Appeal used to allow that evidence back in was the evidence of Harris, because Harris is saying, 'Oh, Tamihere's told me that two trampers came across him in the bush.' Now, of course, he's learnt that from the news media, and we now know it's lies. So the evidence of the two trampers, who say they saw David Tamihere in the clearing with a blonde woman, was admissible because the Appeal Court decided that Harris' evidence corroborated it, giving it more strength? That's right. The only change between Justice Tompkins ruling it inadmissible and the Court of Appeal ruling it admissible was Harris has now come forward and said, 'Well, Tamihere's confessed to me that these trampers come across him.' So how would you characterise Harris' evidence, then, in terms of the importance of the trial? Absolutely crucial, and I can take you to paragraph 39 of Justice Whata's sentencing notes. He considered it ` the tramper evidence was crucial. Without the tramper evidence, there would have been no real case against Tamihere. The only real reason it appears to have got him is because Harris is bolstering it up. All right. So, then Witness C, as we knew him at the time` Witness C's evidence was effectively discredited when Sven Hoglin's body was found, because the cause of death did not match the evidence that he had given in court. That's right. And Hoglin still had his watch on him, and Witness C had claimed that Tamihere had taken that watch. Mm. But the Court of Appeal considered all of that and said, 'We would be surprised if the jury had given any credence to any of the detail 'in the stories Tamihere was said to have told the jailhouse witnesses.' So in ordinary people's language, the Court of Appeal, even looking at the evidence after Sven Hoglin's body was found, said, 'It doesn't matter. 'The evidence is strong enough to convict David Tamihere even without those three secret witnesses.' Well, that's` Sorry. So what makes you think`? My question, Mr Taylor, is what makes you think you know better than the Court of Appeal? It's not that I know better; it's that a lot of people are now of the same opinion as me. And I look at it from, well, basically, a fundamental fairness of what's supposed to be the justice system. Without that evidence` It's all very well for the Court of Appeal to sit back. They didn't see the witnesses. They weren't in the courtroom. They weren't immersed in the atmosphere of the trial. You ask anyone that was at that trial` I mean, John Tamihere, David's brother, he gave evidence at the trial ` sorry, at the trial for perjury in August 2017. He considered it was crucial. David has always said the moment that Harris gave evidence, he knew that any chance of acquittal was over. So you, basically, believe that Harris' evidence and the evidence of those secret witnesses, as you would call them, led specifically to David Tamihere's conviction for two murders? Well, yes, I do. Basically, I do, but, I mean, as I said earlier, the police obviously needed them to convict David Tamihere or they wouldn't have been called. That's what we look at as well. All right. But if we take what you're saying at face value, that would mean that we can't trust juries to decide who is telling the truth, and doesn't that undermine the entire jury system? No. You can trust juries to tell who is telling the truth. I mean, they obviously said to Harris at the trial in August, 'We haven't got "stupid" written on our foreheads.' You know? The lawyers are saying` So you can trust them to discern who's telling the truth, but they need information, Lisa. You know our old tech term, 'Garbage in, garbage out'? That's what happens. If the jury doesn't have all the information that they need to make a proper assessment of their credibility, then you can't expect them to. And it's particularly understanding the dynamics that operate on these people that are in prison. They've got no hope; they're in prison. I want to talk to you soon about what juries should be told, but before we move on, and I don't wish to retry the Tamihere case here, but I am going to put it to you that that verdict can still be right even if the jailhouse witnesses are lying, because isn't it about the totality of evidence? So this doesn't necessarily mean that David Tamihere is innocent. It absolutely doesn't mean David Tamihere` Although, I think he is, and during our enquiries, we actually uncovered the ident` or, we didn't uncover it; other people were aware of it ` of a man who was probably actually the real murderer. All right? And I can give you his name, Lisa. Right? And I'm not the only one that thinks it. This guy made a deathbed confession to a district nurse. But, anyway, getting back to your question, judges tell juries` It's like circumstantial evidence. The Court of Appeal has agreed, and everyone does, that the whole Tamihere case was based on circumstantial evidence ` thin strands of a rope. But once those strands start breaking away, the rope's not going to hold up any more, is it? And you believe the rope doesn't hold up? No, I don't, and any fair-minded person would be of similar mind, I believe. Okay. So does winning this perjury case against Harris actually change anything for Tamihere? Because he's still a convicted double murderer, and he's still on lifetime parole, and he has exhausted every appeal option available to him. That's right. Well, I believe ` and as you probably understand, I do know a wee bit about criminal law ` that Mr Tamihere now has fresh evidence, i.e. the guilty verdict against Harris, eight counts of perjury. Right? Eight counts. Also there is other fresh evidence that is available to him that he can advance ` like, he's had it before, but commutatively now. And also a very important point ` and this is how Dean Wickliffe had his conviction overturned back in the late '80s ` there was improper disclosure here. The police did not disclose to the Tamihere defence details of Harris' previous lies in trying to incriminate another man as to a double murder. You see? Right. So that is enough to get, in my humble opinion, a Section 406a application to the Governor-General and ask for a retrial. And he'd be acquitted; I absolutely feel that in my bones. And stay with us; we'll have more from Arthur Taylor after the break. Welcome back. Prison inmate Arthur Taylor successfully prosecuted convicted murderer Roberto Conchie Harris for perjury after Harris lied when giving evidence against David Tamihere in a double murder trial in 1990. Harris was one of three jailhouse informants at the trial, known as Witnesses A, B and C. I asked Arthur Taylor what evidence there is that those witnesses got inducements of any kind in return for giving evidence. Let's look at the one I'm most familiar with ` Harris, okay? Harris was in for a particularly heinous double murder, all right? A young couple. And he left the bodies there for the three young schoolchildren to find, all right? Okay? Yep. Shot them execution-style. Harris had done nine years when he was paroled. Now, you just don't do nine years for a double heinous murder. Let's go back a bit further. So what are you saying? What happened? OK, Detective Inspector Hughes, who was the OIC of the Tamihere case flew to the parole board in Christchurch and spoke up on Mr Harris' behalf. 'Great citizen', you know? 'We can let him out', you know? Police` No, I'll stop you there. That police officer maintains that, yes, he went to the parole hearing, and he informed the parole board that Mr Harris had given evidence and assisted the police in this case, but that is where the line in the sand was, in the police's view. That's what he's saying. I know that the parole board records weren't obtained, all right? And I know how parole boards operate, Lisa, all right? You've got a senior detective inspector coming here that` Mr Hughes had quite a reputation at that stage, all right? He's coming here, in front of the parole board, and he's supporting him. He doesn't need to say much, Lisa. Just his mere presence is enough. Let's look forward. The parole board didn't let him out straight away. They let him out about nine months later. So he was back on the street within one year of giving his evidence in the Tamihere trial. So you think that was a back-door reward for his evidence? A guy like Harris ` you don't need to spell it out in black and white, Lisa. Clear understanding that he gives evidence ` and it's got to be favourable to the police, because he's not going to get any rewards unless it is favourable to the police ` they will help him out. Absolutely. That's how it operates. Did he get anything else that you know of? Well, I certainly know that he was released, I believe, around about November '92. Within weeks of being released, he was committing serious crimes in the community ` up around Pakiri, places like that. Orewa. They were getting covered up by the police. He didn't appear until he got really out of control and started running around with a shotgun and` That is a serious allegation, Mr Taylor. He was recalled to prison because of offences, so someone reported him. Someone followed up. Absolutely. When the smell got too much, they couldn't keep covering it up. That's what happened, Lisa. I can guarantee you that. What about the other two? The other two? Witnesses A and B ` did they get anything? The other two? Well, I can't name them. I can only name Kapa, of course. Yep. The other one still has name suppression. Yeah. Obviously, I would like to have prosecuted both Kapa and the` Oh, sorry. And the other one. We'll call him Secret Witness A. He's a particularly nasty piece of work ` worse than Harris. So, let's start with Witness B, which is Stephen Kapa. So, do you know if he got anything? I know that when Kapa was released from prison, within` Very shortly around after the Tamihere trial concluded, Kapa was quite often regularly breaking the law around Tokoroa and places like that, and, funny enough, he never went back to prison, ever, until he died in a road accident. Okay. Let's come back to Witness A a little bit later. But juries are made aware that there are deals made. And in Tamihere's case, with Witness A, who was on drugs charges` Mm. Serious ones. You know the court record as well as I do. Yes. In the evidential record, it was discussed in front of the jury the fact that he was on drugs charges and that he anticipated he would get more lenient treatment, or wished for more lenient treatment, as a result of giving evidence. So the jury knew that he thought he was going to get a sweet deal. Well, yes, but they may not` So the jury knew that. Well, they wouldn't have known the extent of it, Lisa. And I'll tell you now that $50,000 was paid out in rewards on another case that he gave evidence in, all right? We don't know exactly who, because the police will not disclose that information, all right? But he didn't only give evidence against` This guy, virtually, had a white collar. He must have had a white collar. About five or six people at that particular time in Mt Eden prison, when he was supposedly there, confessed to this guy, you know? He took more confessions, as I say, than the average priest, you know? So, these witnesses in the Tamihere case gave jailhouse evidence in other cases as well. We know absolutely that Witness A and Witness` Sorry, Harris. Yes. Absolutely. And is still, as recently as a few years ago, touting for business, Harris was ` as a police witness. In a high-profile case? Yes, another one. Okay. So, how open are the prosecution and police about all of this stuff? Well, you see... I mean, do you have any figures or any evidence about the number of jailhouse informants they have used, the number of payments they have made, the value of those payments? They won't release those figures, as you probably know. You ask for them under the OIA, you won't get it. All right? But I'm telling you now, from anecdotal evidence ` and I have feelers right out among the criminal community across New Zealand ` the prison community, I should say ` there's a hell of a lot. In fact, I can tell you right now, Lisa, there's two very high-profile cases coming up in which they plan on using secret witnesses. By secret witnesses, you mean jailhouse informants? Cellmate confessions. Absolutely. Cellmate confessions. Alleged cellmate confessions, yes. People listening to this will think that you have a vested interest in shutting down so-called 'jailhouse narks', because you are a man who has committed crimes behind bars as well. So it's in your best interest for this to have a chilling effect on people who might dob you or any other prisoner in. If that was my motive, Lisa, believe me, it would have surfaced a lot longer ago when I was involved in crime. I wouldn't have waited until I'd retired from crime, all right? You've got to remember the last criminal offence I was convicted of supposedly occurred in 2007, all right? And I would've been more motivated and gone after the secret witnesses` So you're pursuing this for noble reasons, for a bigger principle? I'm pursuing it out of principle to protect the integrity of our criminal justice system, because it's got a bad smell around it now with these secret witnesses. So, the jailhouse witness known as Witness A, who is the remaining witness from the Tamihere case, who still has name suppression ` what are you doing in respect of that person? Are you doing anything? Witness A? Yes, I am doing` I'm certainly trying to locate where he is. I've got private detectives in Fiji and other places looking for him, you know, and putting the word out where he is. He's disappeared completely. Could be dead, as far as we know. You're a serving inmate. How can you afford a private detective? Well, let's just say I've got like-minded people out in the community who are very interested in protecting the integrity of our criminal justice system. And they do their bit, and I do my bit. So, is it your ambition to charge him with perjury as well? Well, if we manage to locate him, even if he's overseas, I'll be asking the government to extradite him. Yes, because I believe I've got more than sufficient evidence available to prosecute him. Is that your job? Isn't that the police's job? No, it is the police's job, but why aren't they doing it, you know? See, like I said right at the start of the interview, Lisa, the message was out there ` you can lie with impunity. No one has ever been charged. No one's ever been charged. So someone had to do something about it. I want the message to get out to these secret witnesses that if you lie in court, and you're caught, don't rely on the police to just cover it up, because I might come after you. So, Newshub Nation has spoken to a number of people who work on both sides of the legal divide, and a lot of them don't want a ban on jailhouse informants, because they say this ` some prisoners tell the truth. Well, I've yet to meet one involved in any of these cases, or even hear of one, that has told the truth. Hang on a minute, if you believe that all prisoners consistently lie, why am I sitting here listening to you? Well, Lisa, I'm not saying prisoners consistently lie. I'm saying that prisoners that are going to get significant rewards, right? Such as their freedom, right? I was personally involved in a case where a guy, instead of getting 12 years' jail, he got five-and-a-half years ` supposedly for the great public good he did. And he was no sooner out of jail` The first day he was out ` because this is, again, something that's consistent ` he's committing serious crimes. Bank robberies. So you're saying where people are given lesser sentences or some kind of inducement, the compulsion to lie is very high? Absolutely. I'm going to put it this way, Lisa. Let's say I trotted into court for one of my cases with a witness, and it turned out I'd paid him $10,000 or $20,000. Some of these guys can be bought very cheap. Right? What do you think the judge would say? He'd say, 'Get out of here, Mr Taylor. This guy's bought and paid for.' But, you know, because it's the police, the authority of the state behind it, they're allowed to testify. What I'm arguing for, Lisa, is that we do something they have in Canada, where they've had problems along exactly what I'm talking about. There have been several high-profile cases in Canada, and one of them was the Thomas Sophonow case, and` So they've had a number of cases where it's been found after the fact that they were unsafe convictions because there were jailhouse informants? Absolutely. These are` So how have they changed their laws, and what would you like us to do? Well, what they've done, Manitoba ` the province of Manitoba in Canada ` they had a particularly difficult one with a guy called Sophonow ` a particularly very high-profile case where this happened. And this guy's absolutely innocent. I think there was about five of these jailhouse witnesses coming forward and giving evidence. The guy was completely innocent, it was proven. They brought in guidelines, and they brought these guidelines in about 2002. Since 2002, only basic things, like, you know, checking whether they could have got the evidence ` what they're saying is being told to them by the accused ` from somewhere else, like newspapers or places like that ` TV. Basic checks on the validity, the credibility of the evidence. They haven't had one single jailhouse witness since 2001 that has been able to pass the threshold. And, also, as I understand it, that in California and Canada, you require independent corroboration. You cannot convict someone solely on the evidence of a jailhouse informant. Yep. In California, they've had, for a long time, an accomplice direction under their law, where an accomplice can't give evidence against an accuser unless it's corroborated. And I think it was about 2011, California passed another law, amended that, and included jailhouse witnesses among it. They've got to be corroborated. Should we have that in New Zealand? Absolutely, because of the particular danger of this type of evidence. All right. So, the Law Commission reviews the Evidence Act periodically, every five years or so, and I believe that they're currently in the throes of one of those reviews. You've got a matter of seconds. What would you say to them about reviewing that act? I would say to them that they need to talk with people that have encountered these people, and they need to look at what happened in Manitoba, and perhaps` Well, I've got the Manitoba guidelines here. But, perhaps, adopt them holus-bolus. Should there be a register where the payments made and discussions had with informants are registered and are discoverable for the defence? Well, in the Manitoba guidelines, that's precisely that. There's got to be a register ` a province-wide register of these informants. And what could be regarded as inducement, all things that might have borne on the validity of their evidence have got to be disclosed so the jury can know about it. Right. So you want that here? Absolutely. Yes, I do. That's at least some sort of safeguard so the jury knows. These witnesses aren't there giving evidence because of their great simply civic duty. They're there because of their self-interest, generally. So the jury needs to know what is bearing on them giving evidence. Are you here out of your self-interest? No, I'm not, Lisa. No. No. I'll tell you what, if I was here out of my self-interest, do you think the first prosecution I would've bought would've been against the ratbag that gave secret evidence against me 20-something years ago? Unfortunately, his name's supressed. Well, as we heard there, the Law Commission is currently reviewing the Evidence Act, which includes a section on potentially unreliable evidence, like statements from jailhouse informants. We asked Justice Minister Andrew Little if he thinks the rules should be tightened up and how he feels about the use of those informants in trials. At a personal level, I am pretty uncomfortable, because I've seen the track record in New Zealand we've had of jailhouse witnesses, particularly when they're giving evidence about so-called 'confessions'. And actually, many of them simply haven't stood up. And I do wonder whether, you know, judges running trials really now have to think carefully about the directions they give juries when the best evidence that the police bring is a jailhouse witness claiming that they've heard a confession. If the police insist on bringing witnesses who are current inmates or serving inmates and claim to have heard a confession, is that the evidence has to include the full circumstances in which that inmate is giving evidence ` so did the inmate come forward or did the police go to them? And I think the jury's entitled to know, or should know, about any inducements that have been provided. The Law Commission's doing a review of the Evidence Act at the moment. There's a number of issues they're looking at. They haven't looked specifically at the issue of jailhouse witness evidence. I think it is something that it would be useful for them to include in their report. And I think now that they're looking for public submissions, it's something that actually any member of the public is free to raise with the Law Commission as part of this review. We asked police about their use of jailhouse informants, and they sent us the following statement. Stay with us. After the break, we catch up with our panel ` Newshub political reporter Jenna Lynch, Sherson Willis PR expert Thomas Pryor and Tania Sawicki-Mead from advocacy group Just Speak. Welcome back. I'm joined by now by our panel ` Newshub political reporter Jenna Lynch, Thomas Pryor from public relations firm Sherson Willis and Tania Sawicki-Mead, director of the criminal justice advocacy group Just Speak. Good morning to you all. Thomas, if I can come to you first there. Phil Tywford announcing that he is going to put out an expressions of interest, basically, to get prefabricated housing moving to help him with his KiwiBuild numbers. Is that going to the silver bullet he needs to make those targets? Well, I think it's a start, but, I mean, I think it's interesting that this is happening seven months into Government. This has been their flagship policy ` they've really ramped up the rhetoric on it ` but he's only just now talking about putting out expressions of interest. And to me, all he really announced actually today was just an idea. And it's almost saying, 'We don't actually quite know how we're going to deliver 'on this incredibly ambitious goal, so we're going to have to go up the private sector.' And I mean, undoubtedly, prefabs will be a big part of that. Whether they are the silver bullet, I think it's still really questionable. I just think that the market is so tight, supply is so tight. I've talked to builders and developers out there who are at the top of their game, and their opinion is that this goal's going to be almost impossible to deliver in the time frame the Government's talking about. Interesting. He's saying that, potentially, prefabrication could take up 50% of the KiwiBuild quota, but he's also talking about money from other places ` the Super Fund there ` and he name-dropped Tex Edwards, who was, you know, the former entrepreneur who is behind 2degrees` setting up 2degrees. What did you make of that? Well, I did think that it was interesting that he name-dropped an individual so specifically. And clearly there was some discussions behind closed doors there. But I think it is interesting as a point worth discussing that where is the money going to come from for an investment in prefabrication ` in the kinds of factories and large-scale production that they're talking about. And is there a way that there could be more innovative formulation of that? That it starts not just with Government, but also with other companies seeing the opportunity and investing in that kind of infrastructure, not just prefab buildings, but factories producing them. But I think it's also interesting with` He mentioned that` I think it was you, Lisa, who mentioned that it was challenging for people to get mortgages for prefabricated homes. So, I guess, I'm interested, as someone who's in the middle of a building project myself, you know, what are banks doing? Where is the input and ideas and creativity coming from the rest of the economy, obviously, you know, for whom housing is a massive issue anyway? You know, how are we all going to collectively come up with some interesting ideas for how we readdress this massive challenge? Jenna, he conceded there with Government underwriting apartment developments or multi-unit developments ` some of them will be sold on to KiwiBuild buyers, but with the loosening up of foreign buyer regulation that foreign buyers will also be able to buy those apartments that have been made possible by the Government underwriting? How will that look politically? Well, it's essentially a direct blow against the message that they sold during the election campaign ` that foreign buyers were coming in and buying up houses. Now the Government's going to go in there and underwrite it. And I think one of the massive themes that we're seeing with KiwiBuild is that he's so reliant on the public` on the private sector. He's going out there and saying, 'Give me your ideas'. He didn't have an idea for prefabricated houses. As you said, it's seven months in now, and he's come forward with expression of interest ` 'Come and tell me your ideas'. Because they don't seem to have anything. It's their flagship policy. These details should be out there by now. And he's really, really thin on detail on this policy. He says in a couple of weeks, there'll be a bit more. Looking at a side of eight on a shortlist, and he'll probably announce about the apartment developments in a few weeks. The press will be snipping at his heels. (ALL LAUGH) Very excited about that. We've been waiting for announcements to come out about KiwiBuild for so long. One of the things that's interesting that came out about that this week though is that 1000 houses that are going to be built this year, 800 of them ` so 80% of them ` are going to be bought from the plans. Again, relying on the private sector. It's not adding to the housing stock. You say, co-opting already existing houses into his numbers or ones that would have been built anyway. Also, currently, at the moment, over the last 10 years, there's been an average of about 7000 new homes built a year in Auckland. So if he's saying we're going to have going up to an extra 10,000, and that's not the existing stock that he's buying off the plans, these are new buildings, that's actually huge ` it's a quantum leap. And I'm not quite sure why the Minister has been so firm in his rhetoric on this policy, because, actually, what he can do is say, 'Actually, the last government did a terrible job on this', which is absolutely true. 'We're going to do a better job, 'but by the way it's going to be fiendishly complex. It's going to be really difficult to deliver'. And actually dampen down and manage some of those expectations. But he just appears to be going the other way on it. That's a more complex political message to sell though, isn't it? Do stay with us. We'll be back after the break. Welcome back, you're with Newshub Nation and our panel. Tania, heard there from Arthur Taylor who is a serving inmate, he is on this crusade to get the law reformed around using jailhouse informants. He says it's left a bad smell around our justice system. Does he have a point? Do we need tougher restrictions, do you think? I think he does, I mean, I think if we just look at examples he cited, there's a clear correlation between the use of jailhouse informants in cases where the evidence is thin. And I think that that does speak to the dangers of essentially allowing the power of prosecutors and the police to push a hunch or a belief that they have in a certain person's culpability without really a strong case to be made. But in general, I mean, with informants there's the other issues, obviously the incentives is a question, and that's why he raised the law change in Canada, the reliability of those particular informants. And I think that where jailhouse informants are frequently used is a common theme across multiple countries where miscarriages of justice are a recurring problem. So it's not to say that` I don't think that it's never admissible. But I think it's really clear that it can be really dangerous when you're talking about people who's culpability really hangs on a knife-edge in terms of the evidence that's against them. Mm. Jenna, we heard from Andrew Little as well, he seems to be a little uncomfortable with the use of jailhouse informants. What did you take from his comments directed, really, at the law commission, who are currently reviewing the evidence act? Yeah, Andrew Little doesn't seem to be so well-versed in the art subtlety, does he? He's basically giving them a direct message of what he thinks. That's starting to get Andrew Little in a little bit of trouble. He did it with the Waikeria decision. He's done it a little bit around the justice reforms as well, speaking out about what he thinks when these reviews are going on that are supposed to be independent reviews, so if he's going to go out there and give his opinion, he needs to make sure that he classes it as his opinion, not a government preference, in my opinion. Yes, no, and I think he used the words 'I personally' when he started that sentence. So, what do you think about the fact that it was an inmate who ends up taking a perjury case, isn't that the role of the police? Well, I guess it is. But actually, I mean, kinda good on him, actually for doing it, I think. He obviously saw his wrong-doing there, has plenty of time on his hands inside to take the action. But I have to tell you, he's a fascinating individual, actually. Clearly, like, a huge intellect. And it's somewhat sad that it's been, kind of, misused and misdirected for so many years. Yeah, exactly. All right, let's move on to nurses. They're in mediation at the moment with the DHBs ahead of a vote on Monday. They've rejected an offer of 9%. Do you think that they could lose public sympathy holding out? Cos that's a big number for some people, isn't it? It is a big number. But, I mean, I think if it's a public sympathy war between them and the government, I think I know who'll come out on top. And I mean, the challenge is they haven't had a big pay-rise, since 2005, so there has been a fair period. And I also think, again, it's a similar situation in some ways to Twyford and KiwiBuild in that the rhetoric of Labour before coming into government really built up their expectations. So I think they rightly felt they were in line for a decent pay-rise. And so I think, you know what? Push harder. And when the government says they've got no more money, these guys aren't stupid. They can see there's surpluses in the budget in the next year. They know they've got money to spend, so I think they're going to keep on pushing hard. And it won't just be them, it'll be teachers, it will be other, kind of, key state sector workers. Yeah, cos there is a long list of others who are going to be into these negotiations. Do you think that the government has given an impression that the pot is deep? Have they over-promised? I don't think they've over-promised. I think they've made it really clear that they really value the time and effort of teachers and nurses and people who have been working really hard for really low pay for a very long time. And if I were them, I would take that opportunity to, you know, to push that, given that there is that shared sense of the value of that work. But, you know, I mean, that's negotiating, really, isn't it? You take the opportunities that you are given and you try and get what you're worth. And nurses and teachers are worth a lot. Jenna, there is the potential for these strikes to go ahead. How's that gonna look for a Labour Government if you have nurses walking off the job? Terrible. Absolutely terrible. It's gonna cause a massive, massive disruption to the health service. The public sympathy thing is all well and good if you're not in the health system at the moment. Everyone has dealt with a nurse and we all think they're great. But if you are booked in for an elective surgery and have been waiting for it for three years on the day that the nurses go on strike, or if your family member has, sympathy runs out pretty damn quick in that situation. So they need to be careful that they don't strike too often. For the Government, for the nurses to go on strike during a Labour government, terrible, absolutely terrible. Just quickly before we go, this week Trump has done a U-turn on detaining kids away from their parents. Tanya, this is illegal border crossings. The Government here, well, they lay relatively low on it, actually, and Winston Peters said he was 'concerned'. That was the word he used. What did you make of that response? Oh, that was a shameful response, I thought. Really paltry in response to an extreme humanitarian, human rights crisis. I think the thing that really scares me about what we're seeing is this use of dehumanising language, which is not new when we're talking about vulnerable populations. But it's not illegal to seek asylum. You know? You have to cross a border without the appropriate paperwork in order to do that. It's not against the law, and people deserve to be treated with humanity when they're seeking asylum, when they're fleeing violence. You know? That part of the reason that this law change came about was because the American government decided that fleeing violence, and women who are fleeing, particularly, domestic violence, would no longer guaranteed fair-treatment once they arrived. I mean, that's shocking. That's truly shocking. That's truly dehumanising. And I think our Government needs to stand up, right now, and say that we don't support that. Was Winston just not trying to cause too many ripples, Jenna? Very quickly before we go. He's said that he doesn't like doing diplomacy by megaphone. But our response was barely a whisper, if we're all honest. And it needed a megaphone. When you listen to the tapes of those kids in distress. All right. Hey, National Party MP Chris Penk joined us on Facebook Live this week to discuss what it's like taking over John Key's old seat, as well as his thoughts on the Government's proposed justice reforms. He's a new dad himself, so of course, we also asked him for some advice for the Prime Minister on how to balance parenting and politics. For me, just to take the time, really, I guess. And my circumstance was different. I'm a lot further down the political food chain, and a father, rather than a mother, at that. So, different. But, yeah, there's a lot of great stuff. It's also a pretty tough gig, actually, initially. So she'll be balancing all of that. So for her and Clarke, yeah, I just wish them well in doing it. And that is all from us, for now. Thanks for watching, do join us again next weekend. Captions by John Gibbs and Elizabeth Welsh. www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 This programme was made with the assistance of the New Zealand On Air Platinum Fund.