Of course, because so many people over the years have condemned me for questioning her leadership, often praising her to the heavens in the process, I am intrigued by the role of the Holy Rock Star in this imbroglio. By the way, that's Katie's description of her. Not mine.
For the cracked record: the reason ADU takes great interest in TEC is twofold: (a) it is a pioneer in a new style Anglicanism, full of novelties;* (b) some key leaders in our church seem bent on taking ACANZP down the same path that TEC has pioneered. If things are not working out too good for TEC, then ACANZP needs to know. Before it is too late.
*True, as has been pointed out to me, in our own modest way, ACANZP is also a pioneer of this and that. Are there as many 'novelties' in our own church? Are our novelties as influential as the novelties in TEC? Do our novelties include making decisions knowing that significant parishes even dioceses of the church will leave it? I suggest not.
POSTSCRIPT There is an apt observation in a comment below (Malcolm) which draws attention to the difference between 'subsidiarity' and 'centralism'. That has got me thinking about opposition/support re the Covenant. One argument against the Covenant is that it is 'centralising': is that argument coming from Anglicans who belong to churches with centralising tendencies? One argument (including by me) for the Covenant is that it is not centralising because it is coherent with subsidiarity: is that argument easier to make when one belongs, as I think I do, to a church which has more subsidiarity than centralization? Of course we have strong opponents to the Covenant in ACANZP, so my thesis looks weak. BUT! But is there opposition here which arises from fear of centralization which stems from origins other than our own non-experience of centralization here?