Look, we could continue on, but honestly, it is cold and raining here in Canberra and sometimes you just have to choose life.

But we will be back here tomorrow! And my goodness – thank you for coming back and visiting us so often! We know you have a lot of choice, and it really means the world that you are choosing to spend some time here with us. Mike Bowers is on assignment for the rest of the week, which means you just have me guiding the blog, but I will do my best in his absence.

Party room meetings are happening tomorrow and I am still waiting to hear whether the possibility of an AUKUS review is gathering more steam after the meetings with the UK defence peeps over the weekend. We live in hope.

Until tomorrow, remember that the English cricket team are the worst, and take care of you.

Ax

Anthony Albanese likes to speak with his hands. Sometimes so much so, it looks like he is doing the Monster Mash:

(All photos by Mike Bowers for The New Daily)

Well, we learnt that question time that the Coalition still have no idea what they are doing, and the independents are positioning themselves as more of an objective opposition asking questions on behalf of their constituencies.

Oh and that Tim Wilson still thinks this is 2019 style politics.

It makes sense that the Coalition are still lost – they have no policy positions, no cohesion, and no real landing point on what they think the Australian people want. And the independents have made it a point of difference to ask what they think their electorates want, and have a real policy discussion, rather than just political point score.

But it is even more stark in this parliament, where the Coalition are, for all intents and purposes, flailing.

Thank Dolly.

Rebekha Sharkie has a question for Tony Burke, who is representing the minister for environment, Murray Watt:

The great southern reef stretches from Western Australia across the southern state to New South Wales, it is more unique biodiversity than the Great Barrier Reef but receives just a fraction of the Federal funding. With the algal bloom cat in South Australia, will the government commit to properly funding monitoring of the great southern reef?

Burke:

I thank the member for Mayo for the question. And also for her whole time here in the Parliament has been an absolute champion of that coastline, including beautiful Kangaroo Island in her electorate. I think the member’s right to say that the great southern reef, people will know the Great Barrier Reef on the east coast, people will know Ningaloo Reef opt west coast but the great southern reef, you’re going from New South Wales, between Tasmania, around Tasmania, around Victoria, South Australia and WA, talking about 8,000km, the size of this reef and there’s been understandably a focus on it right now because of the algal bloom.

If you think of that distance, being a reef of some 8,000km, the algal bloom is 4,400km. So the size of what’s going on is extraordinary. As the member’s aware, and I’ll go to monitoring in a minute, but as the member’s aware, the environment minister has committed $14 million together with South Australia to make sure that we are helping South Australia in particular which has been so horrifically hit by this algal bloom.

You think of people walking along the beaches in South Australia. Like, the great joy, what would normally be the happiest part of their day has become the most depressing, seeing the death of marine life along those beaches. There is significant research and conservation projects which do touch on the great southern reef.

The projects that I’ll go through, they’re not limited to it but a whole lot of their work is within the great southern reef. For example, there’s $24.5 million which goes most of the sites for this on handfish, giant and shellfish, reef restoration projects, knots purely the great southern reef but most of the sites in the program are the great southern reef.

Similarly, there is $5.5 million through the national environmental science program and the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation for management effectiveness, knowledge gathering, across those marine parks, in particular in temperate reefs, and the bureau — Bureau of Meteorology together with the CSIRO is also looking at having a marine heatwave forecast tool. People would be aware that the challenge here has been three things that have come all at once. We had, from the Murray River, a nutrient run-off of extraordinary proportions, combined with the cold water [not coming] and also a marine heatwave. All of that has caused what we’ve been seeing, by the best of scientific research so far. But the commitment that I certainly can give as well is that that Albanese government will continue to support the South Australian government to address what is horrific.

Unfortunately, Tim Wilson is still being Tim Wilson:

My question is to the Prime Minister. Or this guy. The Albanese Labor government decided not to deregister…

Tony Burke is on his feet immediately, because who doesn’t like a bit of sport from time to time.

There are times when abuses of the standing orders are by people who know it’s an abuse and it’s completely deliberate and I put to you this was one of those times.

Dugald tells Wilson to stick to the proper names.

Wilson is back. With that grin. You know the one.

The Albanese Labor government decided to not deregister out-of-control CFMEU and appoint an administrator. The CFMEU boss has called on his union to break into the New South Wales residential building sector saying ‘The builders who are going to get the state government money are not our builders 6789 the challenge for us is we’ve got to get into that non-union sector.”

Will the CFMEU’s plan to unionise the New South Wales residential housing sector increase prices or decrease prices?

Albanese:

We on this side of the House are the only political party in here that actually took action against the CFMEU. Those opposite… Those opposite presided over 10 years of growth in the power of John Setka in the CFMEU construction branch. Three weeks after I became leader of the Labor Party, in 2019, I kicked John Setka out of the Labor Party. And during the last term… (

And during the last term, Mr Speaker, we took action to remove the power of people who had gone, someone like John Setka who had gone from controlling the Victorian branch to then controlling the South Australian branch de facto as well, had — well, had increased his power in the union. In the Labor movement, the construction branch of the…

The interjections grow and there is a point of order but Albanese decides he can’t be bothered and sits down (he concludes his answer)

Things are going great for the Nats, as caught by Mike Bowers:

The US and the EU have reached a trade deal a few hours ago, averting a trade war between allies (for now). A 15 percent tariff was as low as Trump is willing to go – Japan got a similarly “nice” treatment. In return for this leniency, the EU committed to buy more American weapons and another $US 750 billion worth of energy (or $1.14 trillion in Australian dollars).

We can be sure that the energy in reference would be overwhelmingly, if not entirely, fossil fuel. And $1.14 trillion is a lot – you could buy 11 billion barrels of crude oil at current price, or three-and-a-half years’ worth of import for the EU. Remember: this is additional purchase on top of the existing orders!

Trump is serious about his promise he would make America dominant in energy production and export. To do so, the Trump Administration is now trying to keep the rest of the world addicted to its fossil fuel. This would give the US leverage over its customers, and ensure handsome profits for American fossil fuel producers and investors – all at the expense of the rest of us, who will be left with the consequences of climate change.

This is a threat to our future. A collateral damage may well be Australia’s own fossil fuel industry, who will face greater competition from the unleashed American producers. A smart play for Australia, even if for purely self-interested reasons, would be to aggressively diversify towards renewables.

The United States is increasingly a disruptive, even (literally) toxic global actor. Australia should be quite wary of what Trump is selling.

Sophie Scamps asks Anthony Albanese:

I have been swamped by electorate people writing to me of their horror of the atrocities occurring in Gaza. I shares they distress and their calls forker Australia to use all diplomatic levers to end these atrocity the. France will soon join 147 nations in recognising Palestine as a state and a step towards As we witness the mass starvation and the killing of so many civilians and children in Gaza, when will Australia be prepared to recognise Palestine as a state?

Albanese:

I thank the member for Mackellar for her question, and I share the distress that people around the world would feel when they look at young Mohammed, a one-year-old. He is not a threat to the state of Israel nor is he someone who can be seen to be a fighter for Hamas. He’s a young child who deserves to be treated appropriately.

And the position of the Australian government is very clear. That every innocent life matters. Every Israeli and every Palestinian. This conflict has stolen far too many innocent lives, tens of thousands of civilians are dead, children are starving.

Gaza’s in the grip of a humanitarian catastrophe. And Israel’s denial of aid and the killing of civilian, including children seeking access to water and food, cannot be defended nor can it be ignored. We have called upon Israel to comply immediately with its obligations under international law.

We have also unequivocally condemned Hamas and said it can play no role whatsoever in the future state of Palestine and hostages must be released immediately. I make three points about recognition.

The first is that my government is committed to a two-state solution. Israel and Palestine. That has been a bipartisan position for a long period of time. Australia played a role in the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and it’s something we should be proud of.

But what was envisaged was two states, not one.

The second point I’d make is that the foreign minister announced last year na recognition of a Palestinian state by Australia might occur before the finalisation of a peace process. The third point is that the timing of a decision to recognise the state of Palestine will be determined by whether that decision advances the realisation of that objective. It must be more than a gesture. It must be something that’s a part of a moving forward. Australia will make that decision as a sovereign state. We obviously are in discussions with other countries as well going forward. We do that because the reason why a two-state solution remains the goal of the international community is because a just and lasting peace depends upon it.

Prime Minister John Howard said that in 2006. That there can be no solution to the Middle East without solving the Palestinian question, and that means not just Israel’s right to live in peace and security and to defend itself. It also means that the realisation of the legitimate aspiration of the Palestinian people to live in their own state, with peace and security and the prospect of prosperity, as well.

David Littleproud gets a chance to ask a question:

Can the Minister confirm if the Inspector-General of biosecurity’s recommendations that import risk assessments should include the oversight of a scientific advisory panel were implemented in the decision to overturn US beef import bans? If not, why not?

Julie Collins:

I thank the Leader of The Nationals for that question. As the member opposite knows, this was a risk based assessment done by the department on scientific evidence and the department officials have gone through the process and the report was popped up on the website last week, and as the member would know Australia benefits from a two-way trade system.

Australian beef going to the US is very significant indeed. What I would say to the member opposite is that he should not be undermining Australia’s biosecurity system.

We have not compromised on biosecurity at all in any way, shape or form, and the member opposite would know of course we have had to put around $2 billion additional into biosecurity since we came to office because of the way they left our biosecurity system.

The other thing I would say to the member opposite is, of course, he would be aware that that decision has been coming for some time. He would know all about the process that I have spoken about. He would know about the industry engagement that has occurred throughout this process.

The other thing that he would know is that the US and Australia traceability systems are equivalent and that the decision has been taken based on science around the US system and the Australian traceability system and, of course, all food imported into Australia must be safe and compliant with our food standards. This has been done on a scientific basis. The member opposite would know that the department’s security assessment is done in the usual manner as it is done for every other imports into this country.