Wasn't Australia lucky that Whaling In The Antarctic (Australia V. Japan: New Zealand Intervening) was already before the International Court of Justice by the time Tony Abbott became prime minister

This was Tony Abbott reported in The Age on 12 January 2010:

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says a Coalition government would not take international legal action against Japanese whaling…

While the Coalition would like Japan to stop whaling, ''we don't want to needlessly antagonise our most important trading partner, a fellow democracy, an ally'', he said.

''There are limits to what you can reasonably do, and taking war-like action against Japan is not something that a sensible Australian politician ought to recommend.''…

This is the victory for whale conservation in the Southern Ocean that the former Federal Labor Government bequeathed Australia:

WHALING IN THE ANTARCTIC (AUSTRALIA v. JAPAN: NEW ZEALAND INTERVENING) 31 March 2014 Judgment

Further information here.

On 31 March 2014 the International Court Of Justice rules that Japan's JARPA II annual whale slaughter in the Southern Ocean must cease

WHALING IN THE ANTARCTIC (AUSTRALIA v. JAPAN: NEW ZEALAND INTERVENING) 31 March 2014 Judgment

Further information here.

ABC News 31 March 2014:

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that Japan's whaling program it not for scientific purposes and has forbidden the granting of further permits.

The finding by a 16-judge panel at the ICJ is in favour of Australia's argument that Japan's whaling program is carried out for commercial purposes rather than scientific research.

Japan has been able to kill unlimited numbers of whales in the Antarctic under treaty, arguing that they do so for scientific purposes.

Japan had argued it has complied with the moratorium despite a 2,000-year tradition of whale hunting, leaving coastal communities in "anguish" because they can no longer practice their ancestral traditions.

More than 10,000 whales have been killed since 1988 as a result of Japan's programs.

The ICJ's ruling is final and there will be no appeal.

The Sydney Morning Herald 31 March 2014:

The International Court of Justice has upheld Australia's bid to ban Japan's Antarctic whaling program. 

ICJ president Peter Tomka said the court concluded the scientific permits granted by Japan for its whaling program were not scientific research as defined under International Whaling Commission rules.

Mr Tomka said in The Hague that the court was persuaded that Japan had conducted a program for logistical and political considerations, rather than scientific research.

The court unanimously found it had jurisdiction to hear the case, and by 12 votes to four found that special permits granted by Japan in connection with the program, JARPA II, did not fall within the IWC convention.

It therefore ordered that Japan revoke any scientific permit under JARPA II and refrain from granting any further permits….

Australia sought an order from the International Court of Justice to stop the Japanese whale hunt in a case launched by the Rudd government in 2010.

The case began as tortuous diplomatic negotiations for Japan to phase out its Antarctic hunt broke down in the International Whaling Commission.

Other anti-whaling nations, including the United States, warned Australia against going to the court to fight the hunt which kills hundreds of whales each summer.

Washington's IWC Commissioner, Monica Medina, said that it was an uncertain gamble on whales' lives.

"This is a 'bet-the-whales' case," Ms Medina said then.

But a series of opinions by legal expert panels gathered by international wildlife conservation groups encouraged the then environment minister, Peter Garrett.

He argued strongly inside the Rudd government for taking on Japan, WikiLeaks documents showed….

Australian Water Holdings: Footy, limousines and pole dancing

It would appear that either the directors or the ten or so employees knew how to give themselves a good time…….

Excerpt from NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) Operation Credo-Spicer Investigation public hearing on 27 March 2014 on the subject of Australian Water Holdings Pty Ltd:

GEOFFREY WATSON SC (counsel assisting ICAC): And earlier in your evidence you used an expression horrified, you were  horrified by the expenses, apart from the salaries, you’ve told us about that, were there other aspects that horrified you?

MICHAEL COSTA (former NSW Labor Treasurer who succeeded Arthur Sinodinos as Chairman): Oh, Mr Canaway made it very clear what some of the expenses were via his due diligence um, arrangements and, you know, they were quite staggering.

WATSON: What sort of things?

COSTA: Oh, that stuff that’s been canvassed in the press, limousines um, um, I think he did mention pole dancing um, so I don’t know what that was all about um, look, it was, it was clear that the um, the, the expenses were out of control um  

WATSON: What about the box out at the footy stadium?

COSTA: I, I didn’t find out about that till much later and Robert Groom advised me of that, we - and when I was there I tried, we tried to cancel it um, but it wasn’t um, possible to cancel because they had a, a contract. I think I must have found out um, there might have been two or three games left or ah, but I never of course went there. The other um, was it, the other expenses were things like directors’ fees for the Queensland directors which I thought were ah, you know um, had to be cut ah, that whole Queensland operation though it was, I’ve got to say they were doing good work up there, I mean, the proposal they came up with ah, in terms of the coal seam gas was a very innovative proposal and if it had of been successful would have been um, um, you know, added enormous value to the company.

In which House of Representatives Speaker Bronwyn Bishop fails to acknowledge a Point of Order and allows comment on a matter still before an Australian court

On Tuesday 25 March 2014 former member for Dobell, Craig Thomson, was released on bail (approximately one hour after sentencing) after his legal team appealed the three-month jail sentence.

One day later in the House of Representatives Prime Minister Tony Abbott mentioned Craig Thomson in relation to the matter under appeal.

Because the matter is still sub judice Abbott's remarks were irresponsible at best and prejudicial at worst.

Hansard 26 March 2014:

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:40): My question is to the Prime Minister.

Why does the government have a plan to bring back knights and dames, but no plan for Australian jobs? Prime Minister, why is the Abbott government's priority a plan to bring back knighthoods? ….

Mr ABBOTT: This is a government which is capable of doing several things at the same time. But our priority is lifting the burdens on Australian families, and last week we tried to scrap the carbon tax, and Labor made the carbon tax stay. Yesterday we tried to scrap the mining tax, and Labor made the mining tax stay. We are trying to clean up the building and construction industry; Labor is trying to stop that. We are trying to get rid of

union rorts, rackets and rip-offs, and corruption of the sort that the former member for Dobell was engaged in; Labor is still protecting that kind of wrongdoing. These are our priorities; I am proud of them.

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If there was ever a breach of standing order 104(a), it is what we just heard.

The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has the call.