4. Justice Minister—Statements on Indecent Assault of Corrections OfficerHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of JusticeJustice Minister—Statements on Indecent Assault of Corrections Officer4. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement in answer to Oral Question No 8 on Tuesday that The member is alluding to the offender I referred to in a question last week relating to the pinching of a prison officer's bottom"?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I stand by all statements in the totality of the issue that that member is referring to which also included statements that this particular offending was offensive unwelcome and totally unacceptable and I also stand by my statements to the effect that the consequence of that offending should not have been seven years' jail without parole.Hon Mark Mitchell: When the Minister made that statement had he read the sentencing note in relation to the indecent assault offence?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No I had not. I relied on reports in the New Zealand Herald about the nature of that offending. And I go back to the point that I have been very clear and my track record on issues of sexual harassment and sexual violence is very clear and I take no moral lesson from that member and his party who had a Minister of Justice who when he had the opportunity to let the Law Commission do its work on changing the nature of trials for sexual offending so they did not traumatise victims and re-victimise victims told the Law Commission to stop doing its work.Hon Mark Mitchell: Why is the Minister commenting on and characterising an indecent assault on a female corrections officer when he hasn't even read the sentencing notes?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That member is completely wrong because the issue was all about the consequences of that particular offending. In that particular case the offender was convicted the offender was sentenced but it was circumstances in which that offender was facing seven years' jail without parole. This Government is not going to have and continue that party's promotion of American-style justice with over-the-top disproportionate sentencing.Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he acknowledge that the victim in fact had her buttock grabbed hard and held by the offender and when she tried to get away the offender followed her and grabbed a gate to prevent her from leaving which left her in her own words feeling totally degraded vulnerable and uneasy when performing her work duties?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I accept what that member says and it would be nice if that member and his colleagues had said more when they had a leader who molested a hospitality worker repeatedly by pulling her hair.Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The suffix to that answer is entirely out of order and it should have been brought to account very quickly. He had no ministerial responsibility for that not even in his capacity or in the time frame.SPEAKER: Well I think a very serious accusation was being levelled at this Minister and I think what he was trying to do was contrast approaches. This is generally a robust Chamber. That was a very robust questioning line from the Hon Mark Mitchell and I think that the response while it went right up to the edge and was unusual was not out of order.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point of order—SPEAKER: No. Well I'll give the member another go but I don't want him to relitigate my ruling.Hon Michael Woodhouse: I'm not going to but I am going to suggest that it is a slippery slope to the bottom if rather than rejecting or refuting the question we get into some sort of tit-for-tat "Who was worse at what?" Regardless of the merits of the answer I would suggest that that is going to cause disorder in this House.SPEAKER: Well I agree with the member and I don't want that situation to occur but when a Minister's values are being questioned as they were then one can expect a robust response.Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to clarify: that question wasn't laying any criticism; it was asking if he acknowledged what actually happened to the victim in that case.SPEAKER: It was part of a series of questions which were robust.Hon David Bennett: Oh my God!SPEAKER: David Bennett was that you?Hon David Bennett: Yes.SPEAKER: Stand up withdraw and apologise.Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.Hon Mark Mitchell: Does he understand the words and characterisation that he chose to use in relation to an indecent assault on a female corrections officer has sent an appalling message to prison inmates and may have increased the risk particularly for female corrections officers in their own workplace?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don't accept that member's characterisation of the consequences of what I have said. I have been very clear about my attitude towards and actions on issues involving sexual harassment and sexual violence which is a step way better than members opposite.Hon Mark Mitchell: Will he apologise to the growing number of women who are deeply offended and feel his characterisation of an indecent assault against a female corrections officer as New Zealand's justice Minister is totally inappropriate?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Since nothing I said conveyed that meaning I think the most important thing is actually for members opposite who allowed their Minister of Justice to stop the Law Commission doing work that would have made trials on sexual offences a lot better for victims of sexual violence—she stopped it in its tracks. That was wrong."