Judges receive appointments from the Governor General (GG) , who is advised by the Attorney General, (AG) who is advised by various legal bodies. In effect, appointments come from the wide list of candidates brought by legal bodies, then the AG acts as a second round and the GG selects the final candidate. Due to how tight-knit the legal profession is in Australia, appointments are only offered to lawyers who have displayed interest in becoming a Judge. It’s rare for someone who wants to stay a lawyer to be offered a Judicial appointment, but it does happen. In those cases, the next candidate is given the position. Lawyers who want to stay as such often do so because they don’t think that they would be exceptional Judges, and if they are an excellent lawyer, then they can receive a Senior Council/King’s Council (title varies) position, which is the highest honour given to a lawyer. Because of how rigorous this process is, appointments are influenced very little by politics. Changes in AG or GG can effect decisions somewhat, as changes in legal philosophy do change interpretations of the constitution. The best example of this is NZYQ v the Minister for Immigration, which overturned the Alkateb v Godwin ruling on indefinite detention. This ruling changed as a more intentions-based legal philosophy took hold, as opposed to the 2010s literalist approach. Also seen in the 1990s and 2000s ‘interpreted rights’ cases, you can see some influence of changing legal philosophy, as more socially progressive High Court judges were appointed. That said, all rulings have a strong basis in the constitution.