- 12 -
35 On this analysis s 9(3) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) itself, together, if necessary, with s 19 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) which provides that the Court has such original jurisdiction as is vested in it by laws made by the Parliament, conferred jurisdiction on the Federal Court: Re Wakim (above) at [105], [107], [108] and [114]. That provision is a law made by the Parliament within s 76(ii) of the Constitution. It picks up, as Commonwealth law, the jurisdiction of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court to hear and determine the present dispute: Ruhani (above) at 527.
36 In Ruhani (above) the High Court considered s 5(3) of the Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976 (Cth). The section provided that where the Agreement (between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Nauru, signed on 6 September 1976) provided that an appeal was to lie to the High Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of Nauru with the leave of the High Court, the High Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for such leave. It was held that this provision was a law made by the Parliament in exercise of its authority under s 76(ii) of the Constitution to make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court in any matter "arising under any laws made by the Parliament". The relevant matters arose under federal law because they owed their existence to the adoption and translation into Australian law of Articles 1 and 2 of the Agreement. The Nauru Act performed the double function of creating and enforcing rights.
37 Here, the content of the law is derived from the law of the Australian Capital Territory: see Ruhani (above) at 499. Although there is some infelicity in that law being defined to mean a matter "in which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction otherwise than by reason of a law of the Commonwealth or of another State", it is sufficiently clear that the reference is to matters in which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction otherwise than by reason directly of a law of the Commonwealth or of another State, that is, where the Supreme Court exercises jurisdiction by virtue of Australian Capital Territory enactments. In the case of a State, such a direct law of the Commonwealth would be s 39(2) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).
38 I reject the respondent's submission that s 9(3) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) is not a law "defining" the jurisdiction of the Federal Court because it does not set out that jurisdiction with sufficient specificity. In my opinion that submission is inconsistent with Spinks v Prentice (above). The earlier general dicta in Abebe v
