High Court case Kartinyeri v Commonwealth
E656132
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.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| High Court case Kartinyeri v Commonwealth canonical | 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) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| bench |
Brennan CJ
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Gaudron J NERFINISHED ⓘ Gummow J NERFINISHED ⓘ Hayne J NERFINISHED ⓘ Kirby J NERFINISHED ⓘ McHugh J NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| 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 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction | High Court of Australia NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| 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 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| involvesParty |
Doreen Kartinyeri
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
The Commonwealth of Australia NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| 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 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| 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)
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth) NERFINISHED ⓘ Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
protection of Aboriginal heritage and cultural beliefs
ⓘ
validity of legislation removing heritage protection from a specific site ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: High Court case Kartinyeri v Commonwealth Description of subject: 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.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy
→
significantEvent
→
High Court case Kartinyeri v Commonwealth
ⓘ