It's also naive to think that the terms of the order are "contradictory" and indicate a failed attempt by the judge to clothe political action in legal terms. The judge is just applying the legislation passed by Victoria's democratically-elected parliament. It specifically requires the judge to identify the "purpose"[1] and "grounds"[2] for issuing a suppression order.
>The judge is just applying the legislation passed by Victoria's democratically-elected parliament.
It's also naive to think "democratically-elected parliament" means much. Democratic control in modern democracies is a joke, a one in 4 or 5 years opportunity to vote a mere yes/no for tons of issues a party stands for.
> in the case of a proceeding suppression order or an order under section 26(1), must specify the applicable ground or grounds
"applicable" would seem to be the operative word here. The problem is that the grounds are not applicable to the stated purpose. You would have to concoct quite an elaborate story to rationalise that saving some foreign politicians from embarrassment is supportable on grounds of national security.
[1] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/oca201358o201...
[2] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/num_act/oca201358o201...