Yanner v Eaton

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning the appellant, Mr Yanner, and the respondent, Mr Eaton, who was a fauna officer. The dispute arose from Mr Yanner's assertion of a native title right to hunt crocodiles in Queensland, which was challenged by the State's fauna protection legislation. The central question was whether this legislation was inconsistent with the continued existence of Mr Yanner's native title rights, particularly in light of the *Native Title Act 1993* (Cth) and the *Racial Discrimination Act 1975* (Cth).

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the *Fauna Conservation Act 1952* (Qld) and the *Nature Conservation Act 1992* (Qld) extinguished native title rights to hunt fauna, and if so, whether this extinguishment was valid under the *Native Title Act 1993* (Cth). The Court also had to consider the nature of the property interest vested in the Crown by the fauna protection legislation and whether this interest was absolute or merely regulatory. Furthermore, the Court examined the potential inconsistency between State and Commonwealth laws, and the operation of the *Racial Discrimination Act 1975* (Cth) in this context.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, reasoned that the vesting of property in the Crown under the fauna protection legislation did not amount to an absolute beneficial ownership that would extinguish native title. Instead, the legislation was interpreted as a regulatory scheme for the exercise of rights, not an assertion of ownership that necessarily displaced pre-existing native title. The Court held that the State legislation, by its terms, did not extinguish native title rights and that any regulation of those rights by the State was not inconsistent with the *Native Title Act 1993* (Cth) in a manner that would render the State law invalid. The Court emphasised that the Crown's property interest was a proprietary right to control and manage fauna, not an ownership that precluded the existence of native title.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The order nisi of Williams J was discharged. The Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth, Western Australia, South Australia, and the Northern Territory were ordered to pay the appellant's additional costs incurred by reason of their intervention. The question of costs in the High Court and the Court of Appeal was reserved, with leave granted for written submissions on this matter.