It is due to the fact that all the Australia states were once sovereign nations and each state’s “supreme” courts existed before Australian federation. The same exists in the USA with the state supreme courts.
> The same exists in the USA with the state supreme courts.
OTOH, a real violation of expected semantics occurs in the New York State court system where the ultimate appellate court is the "Court of Appeals", the trial court of general jurisdiction is the "Supreme Court", and the intermediate appellate court between the two is the "Supreme Court, Appellate Division".
Canada uses the same scheme. It isn't incorrect, just different. A "supreme" court is one of general jurisdiction and are the highest court to which an issue may be brought (as opposed to appellate courts which do not hear issues directly). They are supreme over courts of limited jurisdiction such as family or probate courts.
The US Supreme Court (federal) actually uses the same name scheme as New York and Canada. All district and appellate are limited geographically, with the supreme court being the only court of general jurisdiction (Amongst the fed. All US fed courts are technically limited). But some actions can still be brought directly to the SCOTUS such as disputes between states over land. So it is not purely an appellate court, hence the term supreme.
