Sure, but that is over-complicating it a bit for the purposes of what anakaine wrote. An A.G. is a politician with the current executive government and consults

Sure, but that is over-complicating it a bit for the purposes of what anakaine wrote. An A.G. is a politician with the current executive government and consults with same group of people who organise the whips for legislative votes when making decisions. That isn't differentiating the process from the US except in a cosmetic fashion. If a judge could get the whips' support in the US for a vote then they can get the AG's support in Australia through the same channels. If 51% of the ALP party room disagrees with Quigley's choices he is going to make different choices. Although there is also an argument that it'd be easier to get partisan results because only the AG has to be shameless and he is already selected as someone deeply embedded in politics. If there is a difference I assume it would be who is allowed to be in the candidate pool.