State of Queensland & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia

The parties to this proceeding were the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia, represented by the Attorney-General. The dispute concerned the validity of Regulation 3C, which prescribed certain acts for the purposes of section 9(1) of an unspecified Act. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Regulation 3C, in prescribing acts for the purpose of section 9(1) of the Act, was reasonably capable of being regarded as appropriate and adapted to give effect to the object of the protection, conservation, presentation, or rehabilitation of the relevant matter. This question was framed on the basis of an election by the plaintiffs to narrow their pleading to this specific issue of factual inquiry concerning the regulation's alleged invalidity.

The court's reasoning, as indicated by the submissions, involved considering whether there was sufficient material for the Full Court to determine the regulation's validity. The Commonwealth sought to refer a question of law to the Full Court, contending that the regulation must necessarily be valid. However, the Commonwealth's application was framed as being pursuant to liberty to apply, relying on changed circumstances since the matter was last before the court. A key change in circumstances cited was the Full Court's judgment on 30 June 1989, which upheld a proclamation.