Commonwealth v Tasmania
1983 Australian constitutional law case
Commonwealth v Tasmania (popularly known as the Tasmanian Dam Case) was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 1 July 1983. The case was a landmark decision in Australian constitutional law, and was a significant moment in the history of conservation in Australia. The case centred on the proposed construction of a hydro-electric dam on the Gordon River in Tasmania, which was supported by the Tasmanian government, but opposed by the Australian federal government and environmental groups.
Background to the case
In 1978, the Hydro-Electric Commission, then a body owned by the Tasmanian government, proposed the construction of a hydro-electric dam on the Gordon River, below its confluence with the Franklin River, in Tasmania's rugged south-west region. The dam would have flooded the Franklin River. In June 1981 the Labor state government created the Wild Rivers National Park in an attempt to protect the river. The boundaries would have allowed the construction of another dam lower on the Gordon River, below its confluence with the Olga River.
In May 1982, a Liberal state government was elected which supported the dam. The federal Liberal government at the time, led by Malcolm Fraser, made offers of compensation to Tasmania, however, they were not successful in stopping the dam's construction.
In November 1982, UNESCO declared the Franklin area a World Heritage Site after a nomination by the Labor government, forwarded by the Commonwealth, was accepted by the World Heritage Committee.
The public source identifies “Commonwealth v Tasmania” as 1983 Australian constitutional law case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Commonwealth, Tasmania and Australian.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Commonwealth v Tasmania”, the useful work is to connect “1983 Australian constitutional law case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Contemporary correspondence, administrative files and participant testimony can test how later narratives organized the event or institution. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 5, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5153917. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1983, 1978, 1981 and 1982.
Later summaries often reconcile disputed chronology or motive more neatly than the contemporary record permits. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Commonwealth v Tasmania”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Commonwealth v Tasmania primary sources, Commonwealth v Tasmania archive and Commonwealth research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Commonwealth v Tasmania”?
- What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
- Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Commonwealth v Tasmania” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.