gtbc

You were referring to state laws. Review of decisions resulting from laws passed by parliament is granted by the ADJR act, and hence by statute.

There are actually significant areas that are excluded from judicial review. https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/laws-restrict-access-co...

Does that have much to do with the matter at hand?

I do live in Australia (forgot to mention that in reply to GP). The primary problem with the terms is not their length, but the fact that they give the Prime Minister inordinate power to control the timing of elections.

The jurisdiction of the court is largely granted by statute is it not? In fact, in the case of the bad immigration decisions you mention, the minister has tried to pass legislation to restrict judicial oversight.

EDIT: And he is also alleged to have used his already considerable discretionary powers to allow au pairs for politically connected individuals into Australia in violation of their visa conditions, with no consequences. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the rule of law.

Australia has an unstable federal political system, with elections every three years or less (this is baked into the constitution, so it will be hard to amend). Imagine the US House of Representatives with the equivalent of Speaker of the US House of Representatives as the Prime Minister of Australia as you won't be far off. Unlike the UK, there isn't a strong civil service, and unlike the US, the Senate, states and courts are weaker, and there isn't a separate executive branch.

This leads to a revolving door of occasionally unsavoury characters getting into positions of great, and virtually unchecked power. Giving these figures enormous power without judicial oversight is deeply problematic. Checks and balances are not a big thing in Australia.