With thirty boxes still to unpack, I am struggling to post tonight. Just a few snippets.
I haven't written anything on the Peter Slipper issue and don't feel strong enough to try to explain it all to my international readers. But just to give you a feel, consider these two stories:
I must say that the whole thing bemuses me.
In my post, Jottings - the environment, entitlements and the High Court with a dash of media, I said in part:
At the end of High Court asserts the power of Parliament, I expressed the hope that Legal eagle would explain the implications of the school chaplain court case to us all. She did so in High Court Chaplaincy case and government contracting. kvd, a regular commenter on both blogs, expressed his continuing confusion. I share that confusion. The decision followed the earlier decision in the Brian Pape case and in a sense amplifies elements of that decision.
To my mind, the issue is not contracting as such, although the case has led the Commonwealth to foreshadow rushed legislation to validate a whole series of previous arrangements. Rather, the whole imbroglio appears to have profound implications for the workings of Government, with something of a baby and bath water flavour. Mind you, that's a dreadfully mixed concept!
Now kvd has directed me to this post by Anne Twomey: Parliament's abject surrender to the Executive. I think that she has well captured some of my concerns. Well, I want to unpack some more boxes!