Senator MARGETTS —My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill. In relation to the desecration of a sacred site between Leonora and Gwalia in Western Australia which occurred in May last year, is the minister aware of the comment by the state minister Kim Hames in this morning's Australian newspaper that the failure of the state government to prosecute the mining company responsible within the 12-month period allowed was because it was waiting for evidence of the boundaries of the sacred site? Does the minister share the concern of the Aboriginal community about the state government's unwillingness to proactively investigate and prosecute desecra tion of sacred sites? Would the minister comment on this incident in relation to the list of deficiencies in state regimes outlined by Justice Elizabeth Evatt, with particular reference to the need for blanket protection of areas of significance through effective criminal sanctions without the need for ministerial consent? Do incidents like this undermine his commitment to the Aboriginal Heritage Protection Bill, which has been universally condemned by Aboriginal groups?

Senator HILL (Environment and Heritage) —I have read the article in the Australian , and I think I understand the point of the question. I may be corrected on this but, as I understand it, under the Western Australian Heritage Protection Act it is an offence to desecrate an Aboriginal sacred site, and therefore perhaps the form of the Western Australian legislation is satisfactory and to a standard that we might well expect to be desirable. But the issue then becomes whether the implementation of the act is of a similar standard. As I recall it, part of the debate before Justice Evatt and in the other parliamentary committee assessments of the proposed changes to the Commonwealth's Aboriginal heritage protection regime concerned whether accreditation of the state laws also required some form of accreditation of the state practices.

Having said that, I think this is an interesting case study that is well worth examination. The comment I saw from the state minister in the article was that the evidence had not been advanced to justify or support a prosecution. The issue is then raised as to whose responsibility it should be to seek out such evidence and therefore provide the basis for a prosecution. Certainly, I gather from what Senator Margetts is saying that her advocacy is for the position that, when a complaint is made, the state should be proactive and should investigate—as might apply to any other alleged breach of criminal law—and that, if evidence does justify such an action, a prosecution should then be launched.

Why I say it is an interesting case study is that it in fact might help to either prove or disapprove the arguments that were put before Justice Evatt and that will of course be debated in this place a little later this year. Unfor tunately, Senator Margetts is unlikely to be with us a little later this year but, by asking this question today, she has made sure that we are all aware of this particular issue and that it will be properly debated and dealt with in this place. Certainly, we wish the piece of law that will be enacted hopefully later this year to be effective. Everyone accepts that there are major deficiencies in the existing Commonwealth law in relation to the protection of Aboriginal heritage sites.

There has been a lot of advice and study on what reforms are necessary. Most of the advice has been taken up within the existing bill. The only part where I disagree with what Senator Margetts has said is in the final bit, where she said that all Aboriginal groups are opposed to the proposed reforms. All Aboriginal groups are in fact calling for reform. There is debate over the detail of that reform. Most of what has been sought by the Aboriginal groups has in fact been accepted. There are still some areas of disagreement, and they will no doubt be the subjects of the detailed debate that will take place in the Senate later this year. I am confident, Senator Margetts, that out of it will come Commonwealth legislation that will be not only an improvement on that which exists at the moment but also effective in the way that you seek.

Senator MARGETTS —Madam President, I have a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his dealing with the question so far but I did not hear, in anything in his answer, that he recognised that there was actually some role for the Commonwealth in overseeing these issues—particularly as one could quite clearly point to the Commonwealth's constitutional obligations in relation to these issues. If the minister is unwilling to use, perhaps, the international obligations on his government as grounds to intervene with the state in this matter—and I am not sure whether that is what in fact he is saying—will he at least undertake to have informal discussions with the state minister with a view to encouraging some action from him regarding prosecution?

Senator HILL (Environment and Heritage) —As I understand it, there was not an application for protection made to the Commonwealth in this particular matter, and so it was not drawn to the Commonwealth's attention and the Commonwealth did not so act. The interaction between the Commonwealth-state laws is that, under the new bill, the state legislation must meet the standards as defined by the Commonwealth. That raises the issue as to whether the standards should deal only with the form of the state legislation or with the practice and implementation of that state legislation. What I have said to Senator Margetts is that I hear her point. It has been raised before, and I am prepared to look at it further. I am quite happy to look at this as a case study that may prove or disprove the point that she is making. But there needs to be an effective national system which incorporates the responsibility both of the states and of the Commonwealth, and that is what all interested in this matter are seeking to achieve.