just the state or territory in which the matter arose. The High Court's bro jurisdiction is similar to that of the Supreme Court of Cana and unlike the Supreme Court of the United States which has a more limited jurisdiction. As such, the court is able to develop the common law consistently across all the states and territories. This role, alongside its role in constitutional interpretation, is one of the court's most significant. As Sir Owen Dixon said on his swearing in as Chief Justice of Australia:
"The High Court's jurisdiction is divided in its exercise between constitutional and federal cases which loom so largely in the public eye, and the great body of litigation between man and man, or even man and government, which has nothing to do with the Constitution, and which is the principal preoccupation of the court."
This bro array of jurisdiction enables the High Court to take a leing role in Australian law and contributes to a consistency and unimity among the laws of the different states.Constitutional matters, referred to in section 76(i), have been conferred to the High Court by section 30 of the Judiciary Act 1903. However, the inclusion of constitutional matters in section 76, rather than
section 75, means that the High Court's original jurisdiction regarding constitutional matters could be d. In practice, section 75(iii) (suing the Commonwealth) and section 75(iv) (conflicts between states) are bro enough that many constitutional matters would still be within jurisdiction. The original constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is well established: the Australian Law Rem Commission has described the inclusion of constitutional
matters in section 76 rather than section 75 as "an odd fact of history." The 1998 Constitutional Convention recommended an amendment to the constitution to prevent the possibility of the jurisdiction being d by Parliament. Failure to proceed on this issue suggests that it was considered highly unlikely that Parliament would ever take this step.