Little Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14542. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) to theMinister of Justice: Does she stand by all her answers to Oral Question No. 9 on Tuesday and Oral Question No. 8 on Wednesday last week?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Yes.Andrew Little: Why when asked last Tuesday: “Will the Minister implement the recommendation of the Law Commission made in March this year to modify the law on evidence in sexual offence cases … ?” the recommendation of which related to advance notice being given of evidence of previous sexual experience did she say: “No.” and then tell theSunday Star-Timesin the weekend just gone and theDominion Post as reported today that she is now planning to change the law of evidence in exactly the way that the Law Commission has recommended?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well actually the member has misquoted himself again. What we have is that he went on to say—when he put the quote mark in there it was not quite right and I am sure he knows it when he looks at theHansard—“so that victims are not re-victimised when giving evidence on offences against them?”. Well actually there is no way at all that anyone would think that the changes to the Evidence Act will of themselves prevent victims from being re-victimised when they giveevidence. I can tell that member that I cannot think of any proposal that would prevent victims from feeling utterly re-victimised whenever they have to give their evidence.Andrew Little: What happened between question time last Tuesday and question time last Wednesday so that when she was asked to explain her “No.” answer given on Tuesday she first denied that she was asked the question then said that I was confused and then said that she was looking at the issue when on the previous day she said that there was no need to?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I cannot speak for that member Andrew Little but I can certainly say that I had a lot of work to do and I went to sleep and woke up very refreshed thanks very much for asking.Andrew Little: Does she think that her suggestions in theNew Zealand Heraldtoday of providing better information about core processes to victims allowing someone else to read a victim’s impact statement to the court and providing notification to victims about bail or parole—all of which presuppose a prosecution to be on foot—are sufficient to deal with the fact that 90 percent of sexual violations go unreported and only about 1 percent of sexual violence events result in a conviction?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I cannot imagine for a moment that the proposals that I am supporting would of themselves go anywhere near dealing with the trauma of a rape victim having to give evidence to make a complaint to confess to their family members where they might or might not have been and to get rid of those dreadful feelings that victims have when they get accused of wearing clothes that might apparently turn moderate men suddenly into abusers. So I cannot imagine for a moment that anything that has been proposed will make a victim feel better. What it will do however is actually help to bring more offenders to account and that is important.Andrew Little: Does she accept that it is time to make real change on the law of sexual violation by ensuring that courts focus on the only issue in any such case which is whether the act in question was consented to ensuring that complainants are not left feeling as though they are on trial and leaving issues of mitigation to the sentencing phase or will she just continue to deal with this important issue with her usual bombast bluff and bluster?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: On the first part of that question I would have to say that I take this issue very seriously—far more seriously than that member seems to be taking it from the nature of the second part of his question to which I have to say I will leave it to him to be bombastic and silly about this very serious issue.