60 However, those submissions overlook the provisions of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). As I have noted, all parties and the intervener agree that these proceedings involve the exercise of federal jurisdiction, albeit for different reasons. It follows that the Supreme Court of Western Australia can exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by s 39(2) of the Judiciary Act. It also follows that s 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 has the effect that the laws of Western Australia are to apply, except as otherwise provided by the Australian Constitution or by the laws of the Commonwealth. The CPCA therefore applies. It confers power upon the DPP to bring the proceedings which he has brought, (CPCA, s 41 and s 43). Those proceedings have given rise to the justiciable controversy which is, for one reason or another, now within federal jurisdiction. The provisions of state law which confer authority upon the DPP to prosecute proceedings under the CPCA are picked up and applied by s 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 in the same way as the substantive provisions of that Act which have given rise to the justiciable controversy now within federal jurisdiction, are picked up and applied (see ASIC v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd (2001) 204 CLR 559, 588 - 589, [60] - [61]). Unlike Macleod v Australian Securities and Investments Commission, there has been no suggestion in this case that a law of the Commonwealth has 'otherwise provided' the law governing the standing required to apply for orders under the CPCA, so as to exclude those provisions of the CPCA which confer that standing upon the DPP from the operation of s 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903. Accordingly, for these reasons, question 4 should be answered in the affirmative, that is, to the effect that the state DPP does have power to prosecute these proceedings.