5.b ...or what? In practice these kinds of rules are unenforced because governments tolerance for their own busy schedules, giving exceptions for unavoidable delay, is infinite.

And then it happens so much it's standard practice and attorneys lose social credit for even bringing it up.

I would say it depends. If it takes 80 hours to get approval and it turns out that the warrant was, well, warranted, then I don't consider it to be a big problem.

If it takes 80 hours and it turns out to be abuse, then heads would probably roll.

However, in most cases these things are legitimate. I've worked in government and most people have good intentions. We don't have to protect ourselves, as a society, against the legitimate cases, we have to protect ourselves against the abuse.

Good intentions means nothing. Most people have good intentions but that doesn't prevent them from abusing power, lying and causing damages intentionally and unintentionally.

Then we mean different things by "good intentions".

What if it turns out to be 30 days?

Unless there are stated penalizations for violations, rules mean nothing.

"Judge or nominated AAT member" AAT members are not judges, so does a judge need to nominate these AAT members? Even if they do, I think many would argue that the AAT should not be fulfilling this role. Only judges should, as they are talking about crimes with seven or more year sentences.

  13  Nominated AAT members
    (1)  The Minister may, by writing, nominate a person who holds one of the following appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to issue warrants under this Part:
      (a)  Deputy President;
      (b)  senior member (of any level);
      (c)  member (of any level).
  
    (2)  Despite subsection (1), the Minister must not nominate a person who holds an appointment as a part‑time senior member or a member of the Tribunal unless the person:
      (a)  is enrolled as a legal practitioner of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or of the Australian Capital Territory; and
      (b)  has been so enrolled for not less than 5 years.
  
    (3)  A nomination ceases to have effect if:
      (a)  the nominated AAT member ceases to hold an appointment described in subsection (1); or
      (b)  the Minister, by writing, withdraws the nomination.
  
    (4)  A nominated AAT member has, in relation to the performance or exercise of a function or power conferred on a nominated AAT member by this Act, the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court has in relation to proceedings in the High Court.

Source: Section 13 of the law https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00193

I don't see the necessity and equivalency to be honest. A police officer isn't allowed to search your apartment for example, why should he be allowed to search you documents without court order?

In many jurisdictions, a police officer is allowed to search your apartment under special, urgent circumstances. I'm sure you can think of cases where immediately issued warrants make sense, whether its for apartments or documents.