Tanczos Nandor: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tanczos Nandor: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2008. Volume:647;Page:16780. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 It is a miracle! I thought that the Criminal Procedure Bill had expired I thought that it was dead and gone but like Lazarus it has returned thanks to the intervention of Simon Power. It has not been raised from the dead so much as turned into the undead. Its stinking ambulant corpse will now haunt the statute book and the courtrooms of the land for years to come. It is not so much voodoo economics as zombie legislation. I imagine that my good friend Chester Borrows is feeling particularly betrayed that after his driving a stake through the heart of this cadaver it walks again. 
Chris Tremain 
: You’ve spent a lot of time on this speech haven’t you? 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: It is an illuminating story. 
Dail Jones 
: He had plenty of time to do it. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: That is right Mr Jones; there has been plenty of time! 
For those who are unaware the Criminal Procedure Bill was stalled part-way through the Committee stage over the removal of depositions hearings. There were a host of reasons to oppose the bill and I will enumerate them shortly but the crunch point was an amendment by Chester Borrows to delete the provision that got rid of depositions hearings. He managed to garner and maintain a majority in support of his amendment over a long period of time and in the face of considerable pressure from the Government which was simply not prepared to lose that provision. So the bill was halted in its tracks. I commend Mr Borrows because that was quite a feat. I imagine that some of his caucus were a little uncomfortable about it but he carried the argument because he actually knows how it goes. He has been a cop he has been a criminal lawyer—perhaps I should say he has been a lawyer practising criminal law—and he knows how it goes. I am not a lawyer; I have to rely on advice. The Government’s advice on this matter was apparently based largely on the views of judges and the advice was that depositions hearings make no real difference to the outcome of cases and simply waste time and money. 
Well the Green Party approached the matter with an open mind so I rang up a few lawyers and asked them what they thought. The unanimous view of all of the lawyers I spoke to every single one—defence and prosecution—was that getting rid of depositions hearings would be a terrible mistake. I asked them why judges would have such a different view. The reply was that judges do not sit on depositions hearings except in the case of sexual offences. JPs do depositions hearings so judges do not really see the effect of having them. Depositions hearings speed trials up the lawyers told me. They said that they bring out the arguments and allow early identification of what evidence needs to be tested and what is not in dispute. Depositions hearings can persuade defendants to change a plea to guilty when they see the evidence against them. Despite Rick Barker’s comments and as Mr Jones pointed out what we see in the newspapers and what is said on the stand can be two quite different things. They all said that depositions hearings benefit the efficient administration of justice. 
Government members said to me that of course lawyers would say that because they are paid to do depositions. I simply do not believe that that explains either the unanimity or the strength of feeling of those lawyers. I spoke to a number of lawyers—people I have known for years. They are lawyers of absolute integrity who regularly do pro bono work because they feel an ethical imperative to do so. They do not do legal aid because it pays well; in fact it pays very poorly compared with their normal rates. It is insulting in terms of the rates of pay the hours that are provided for and the conditions—especially for experienced counsel. These people do legal aid because they feel an ethical responsibility to provide legal representation for people who cannot afford it. It is not the legal aid lawyers who deserve criticism but a Government that refuses to pay proper rates to defence counsel. Many lawyers I spoke to had concerns about other areas of the legislation but all were of the view that the issue of depositions hearings was the single most important issue in the legislation. 
Other parties must have got a similar message because the support for Mr Borrows’ amendment held. So we have to ask what caused it to fail. After the acquittal of Chris Kahui who was tried for the murder of his twin children pressure went on the police for failing to reopen the investigation. They were openly criticised for their tendency to decide early in an investigation who is the suspect then look for evidence to convict. Their prosecution of Mr Kahui seemed to some people to be based on a blinkered view of some of the evidence. It is also clearly well established that the police are biased against young males compared with females. I have no view about who was guilty of murdering those poor children. I have no way of knowing who did it; I do not have any information that would allow me to make up my mind. But I do think that the police practice left a great deal to be desired and the same criticism can be made in a number of other cases. 
Deflection of this criticism came through a call for the double jeopardy law to be changed and that is one of the things that the legislation does. The Greens oppose those provisions. Firstly we are of the view that an acquittal secured because of perjury intimidation of a witness or something like that could be better remedied through our strengthening perjury and similar laws. Where a retrial will be based on new evidence under this legislation we are even more concerned because of the incentives that creates for the police to fabricate evidence if they fail to secure a conviction in order to have another go. For those people who think I am being dramatic I remind them that police have fabricated evidence to get a conviction before. We just have to remember the Arthur Allan Thomas case. I am also personally highly suspicious about the Scott Watson case. When forensics staff went through the hairs taken from Mr Watson’s boat no hairs from either Ben Smart or Olivia Hope were found. Amazingly on the second go a long blonde hair leapt out and that was coincident with a slit being found in the bottom of the evidence bag. Was that hair planted? I do not know but I have to say it really worries me. 
Removing the protection against double jeopardy where there is new evidence will clearly create a strong incentive to plant evidence when the police really believe they have the right person—as they do with Chris Kahui because they have said they will not reopen the investigation. But the ability to retry him would not seem to make it any more likely that he would be convicted given that the jury on his case took just a few minutes to decide on its verdict. So it is curious that that case gave rise to a media call for the double jeopardy rules to be changed. 
The Government’s response was to blame National for holding up the legislation. National countered by saying that it supported the legislation’s removal of principles of justice such as protection from double jeopardy and unanimous jury decisions but opposed the removal of depositions hearings. Then a High Court judge came out publicly—and some would say inappropriately—to chide the National Party and other political parties for wanting to retain depositions hearings and unfortunately the National Party folded. 
So I give my very sincere sympathies to Mr Borrows who has had a real taste of party politics. I thank those members of the legal profession who strove to head off this disastrous legislation and I thank all the parties that continue to oppose it. It somehow feels familiar to be once again part of a small minority in this House standing up for civil rights and the protections of a fair trial.