"It is pretty radical thing to say that 'all sex is rape' unless you prove consent. The reality is that in 99.9 per cent of cases, no one is being asked to prove consent."
The Law Society has a strong stance on traditional principles of the legal system, including a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It has argued strongly against inquisitorial systems in the past.
Mr Little said the inquisitorial system still preserved those principles because the Crown would still have to prove a number of aspects of a case before consent was explored.
"I don't accept that that is creating an offence under which the defendant is guilty until proven innocent."
He acknowledged the change would be a "huge leap".
"But when you look at the volume of sexual violence cases and the 1 per cent of cases that result in a conviction, there is something wrong with the way we are handling sexual violation cases. The circumstances may well justify doing something radically different."
In such a system, a victim would not be cross-examined by a defence lawyer.
"A defendant is entitled to have the evidence tested, but rather than face a defence counsel, which can be humiliating, a more controlled way is for the judge to conduct the examination, with counsel conferring with the judge beforehand," Mr Little said.
"That way a complainant can be assured the judge isn't there to do the best for one side or the other, but is there to get the information."
He clarified that Labour favoured the system, but its official policy is to have the Law Commission complete its report into inquisitorial systems, and then respond to that report.
Former Justice Minister Simon Power was a supporter of inquisitorial systems and asked the Law Commission to investigate. But his successor, Judith Collins, has called the system is "a step too far" and stopped the commission's work.