High Court case Kartinyeri v Commonwealth

E656132

High Court of Australia case constitutional law case

Kartinyeri v Commonwealth was a landmark 1998 High Court of Australia case that examined the scope of the federal Parliament’s power to make race-based laws under the Constitution, particularly in the context of Indigenous heritage protection.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

All labels observed (2)

Label	Occurrences
High Court case Kartinyeri v Commonwealth canonical	1
Kartinyeri and Another v The Commonwealth of Australia	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T7311334 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: High Court case Kartinyeri v Commonwealth
Context triple: [Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy, significantEvent, High Court case Kartinyeri v Commonwealth]

A. Guerin v. The Queen
Guerin v. The Queen is a landmark 1984 Supreme Court of Canada decision that established the federal government’s fiduciary duty toward Indigenous peoples in its management of reserve lands.
B. Mabo v Queensland (No 2)
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) is a landmark 1992 High Court of Australia decision that recognized native title and overturned the doctrine of terra nullius in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land rights.
C. Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Cooley v. Board of Wardens is an 1852 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the scope of the Commerce Clause by allowing states to regulate certain local aspects of commerce, such as port pilotage, without violating federal authority.
D. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service is a landmark 1985 UK public law case that established the justiciability of certain exercises of the royal prerogative and clarified the scope of judicial review.
E. A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai
A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai is a landmark Supreme Court of India judgment that clarified the scope of the Election Commission’s powers in conducting elections under the Indian Constitution.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: High Court case Kartinyeri v Commonwealth
Target entity description: Kartinyeri v Commonwealth was a landmark 1998 High Court of Australia case that examined the scope of the federal Parliament’s power to make race-based laws under the Constitution, particularly in the context of Indigenous heritage protection.

A. Guerin v. The Queen
Guerin v. The Queen is a landmark 1984 Supreme Court of Canada decision that established the federal government’s fiduciary duty toward Indigenous peoples in its management of reserve lands.
B. Mabo v Queensland (No 2)
Mabo v Queensland (No 2) is a landmark 1992 High Court of Australia decision that recognized native title and overturned the doctrine of terra nullius in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land rights.
C. Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Cooley v. Board of Wardens is an 1852 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the scope of the Commerce Clause by allowing states to regulate certain local aspects of commerce, such as port pilotage, without violating federal authority.
D. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service is a landmark 1985 UK public law case that established the justiciability of certain exercises of the royal prerogative and clarified the scope of judicial review.
E. A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai
A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai is a landmark Supreme Court of India judgment that clarified the scope of the Election Commission’s powers in conducting elections under the Indian Constitution.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (46)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	High Court of Australia case ⓘ constitutional law case ⓘ
alsoKnownAs	Hindmarsh Island Bridge case (constitutional challenge) ⓘ linked to: Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy
bench	Brennan CJ ⓘ Gaudron J ⓘ linked to: Gaudron Gummow J ⓘ Hayne J ⓘ linked to: Hayne Kirby J ⓘ McHugh J ⓘ linked to: McHugh
citation	(1998) 195 CLR 337 ⓘ HCA 22 (1998) (neutral citation) ⓘ
concerns	Hindmarsh Island Bridge development ⓘ Indigenous heritage protection ⓘ federal Parliament’s power to make race-based laws ⓘ scope of the race power in the Australian Constitution ⓘ section 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution ⓘ
constitutionalProvision	section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution ⓘ section 51(xxxvi) of the Constitution (incidental power, in reasoning) ⓘ
country	Australia ⓘ
decisionYear	1998 ⓘ
features	consideration of the 1967 referendum and its implications ⓘ divided High Court with multiple separate judgments ⓘ significant discussion of constitutional history of the race power ⓘ
fullCaseName	Kartinyeri and Another v The Commonwealth of Australia ⓘ linked to: High Court case Kartinyeri v Commonwealth
hasJurisdiction	High Court of Australia ⓘ
heldByMajority	that section 51(xxvi) can support laws that are detrimental as well as beneficial to a race ⓘ that the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth) was constitutionally valid ⓘ
impact	clarified the scope of the race power in Australian constitutional law ⓘ influenced later debates on constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians ⓘ raised concerns about potential for adverse race-based legislation ⓘ
involvesGroup	Ngarrindjeri people ⓘ
involvesParty	Doreen Kartinyeri ⓘ linked to: Aunty Doreen Kartinyeri The Commonwealth of Australia ⓘ linked to: Commonwealth of Australia
isLandmarkCaseFor	Indigenous constitutional rights discourse in Australia ⓘ interpretation of section 51(xxvi) ⓘ
legalArea	Indigenous rights law ⓘ administrative law aspects ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ
locationOfFacts	Hindmarsh Island, South Australia ⓘ linked to: Hindmarsh Island
ratio	Parliament has broad discretion under section 51(xxvi) subject to other constitutional limits ⓘ the race power is not confined to beneficial laws for Indigenous Australians ⓘ
relatedLegislation	Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth) ⓘ linked to: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth) ⓘ Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) ⓘ linked to: Racial Discrimination Act 1975
subjectMatter	protection of Aboriginal heritage and cultural beliefs ⓘ validity of legislation removing heritage protection from a specific site ⓘ