Cross-vesting of federal jurisdiction in State courts is a complex area of constitutional law. Under s 77(iii) of the Constitution, the Commonwealth Parliament may invest any court of a State with federal jurisdiction with respect to any of the matters mentioned in ss 75 and 76.

Since 1903, great reliance has been placed on state courts exercising federal jurisdiction and they continue to play a significant role in federal civil matters.

The Constitution stipulates that federal jurisdiction conferred on a State court may be exercised by a registrar or other officer who is an integral part of the organisation of the court, as it is constituted under State law

It subsequently became apparent that in some States orders have been made contrary to paragraph 39(2)(d) in relation to taxation and other federal law matters. Parties to proceedings involving ineffective orders have acted on the assumption that the orders were valid and could be relied upon. Consequently, this bill creates new statutory rights and liabilities for parties that may be exercised and enforced in the same manner as valid orders of the relevant court. These provisions will provide certainty for these parties and avoid unnecessary legal challenges.

...subject to the requirements of the Constitution, it is generally not desirable for the States to have to put in place different arrangements for the handling by State courts of matters in federal jurisdiction. This obviously reduces their flexibility to deal with what are no doubt busy workloads.

State registrars already make the same kinds of orders in State jurisdiction which the Judiciary Act currently prevents them from making in federal jurisdiction. These amendments will allow the States to determine which officers, including non-judicial officers such as registrars, can exercise federal jurisdiction. By doing so this bill contributes to achieving a more accessible, efficient and flexible civil justice system.