Asher v Whitlock. Extinguishment of native title requires clear and plain intention, by either the executive or the legislature.
Native title is extinguished to the extent of the inconsistency.
Laws merely regulating native title, or which create a regime of control consistent with continued enjoyment of native title, are not necessarily an indication of intention to extinguish. For example, the creation of a reserve may demonstrate intention to control native title, it does not, however, expropriate it. However, only clear and plain intention excludes native title. Such an intention is only manifested when the inconsistency is such that native title and grantee rights are unable to coexist. Mabo appears promising prima facie, however, is unclear in many respects.