Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Meet The Press -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) This program is captioned live. THEME THEME MUSIC

Hello, welcome to Meet The Press,

2.5 years ago Kevin Rudd dosed the

Labor conference with mogadon, it's

a little different under Julia

Gillard. We came here for debate.

We came here for surprises. With

crowds outside a divided conference

voted to change the party platform

to support same-sex marriage. This

is a deeply personal debate. It is

about our most intimate

relationships, it is about the

people we love. I declare the

amendment carried. Also after

vigorous debate the party endorsed

offshore asylum seeker processing,

with a 50% increase in intake.

Uranium sales to India get worked

over today. If we are serious about

nuclear disarmament we shouldn't

sell uranium to a country that

hasn'ted signed one of the most

important nuclear disarmament

treaties. They argued for a

conscience vote. The current

Marriage Act will stand for a while

yet without the endorsement of the

Coalition. A conscience vote is

bullshit. If the issue comes up

before parliament, it will be

overwhelmingly rejected in both

houses. I don't understand Julia

Gillard. How could a 2011 Prime

Minister of Australia be stuck in

1911 when it comes to equality in

marriage? Greens Leader Senator Bob

Brown is our guest today. Later the

President of the Australian Labor

Party, Jenny McAllister, first

Jacqui Maddock has what is making

news this Sunday, 4 December. Thank

you, and here are the major stories

this morning, the Government's

historic bill to legalise gay

marriage will be met with fierce

Opposition in parliament. The party

reversed its long-held platform at

Labor's annual conference, but any

same-sex marriage bill will be put

to a conscience vote and be doomed

without the likely support of some

Coalition MPs. Reports of a Kevin

Rudd leadership challenge have been

revived following the omission of

the former PM from Julia Gillard's

list of past Labor luminariet,

Julia Gillard failed to mention Mr

Rudd in her conference address,

reportedly sending furious Rudd

backers to predict a leadership

challenge within months. The 14-

year-old Australian boy caught with

drugs in Bali is expected to be

released today. He was sentenced to

two months behind bars for

possession of marijuana, with time

already served the teenager could

arrive back in NSW this evening.

And finally, Labor frontbencher

Peter Garrett says he will oppose

the Prime Minister's push to sell

uranium to India. Today she's

asking the ALP to overturn the

party's ban on exporting uranium to

India, which is not a signature

natry to the Nuclear Non-

Proliferation Treaty. That is news

up to the press on Meet The Press,

it's back to you Hugh. Welcome to

the program Senator Bob Brown from

Hobart, good morning. Good morning.

Was that, yesterday, a red-letter

day for gay rights in Australia? No,

it was a step along the way, but

it's being held back by the Prime

Minister. Without her authority and

leadership, as the commentary was

just giving us, it's going to be

the change to equal marriage is

going to be held up in the

parliament. Where is Tony Abbott.

The leader of the great Liberal

tradition of voting with conscience

and voting for human rights. But

trying to stop this progress on

block. So a long way to go yet, and

the Prime Minister can take full

responsibility for holding us back

in the Howard era, she's with John

Howard on this issue, she's with

him on asylum seeker now, and she's

with him on selling uranium to

India. And - but I can tell you

Adam Bandt will have a bill in the

house ready. He's hoping and

wanting to do that with Labor and

Liberal people who want equality in

marriage, and, of course, we've

already had Sara Hanson Young's

bill in the Senate. It was voted

down by both the big parties in

2009, it's ready to go as soon as

parliament resumes in February.

Labor indicated it doesn't want to

have a co-sponsored private members

bill with Adam Bandt, this is a

Labor action, and they'll bring on

their own private members' bill.

Will this be a race to get a piece

of paper on to the floor of the

parliament. No, the Greens have the

bill in the parliament, in the

Senate. Adam Bandt is calling for a cross-party sponsorship of the bill,

that's the way it should go. It

won't be a Government bill, that's

the problem. It's got wait for

private members' time, and that

takes time in the house, it won't

happen in the first week. It's

ready to go in the Senate. The

problem is it's not a Government-

sponsored bill and that's because

Julia Gillard is opposed to it.

That is potentially an

insurmountable problem when it

comes to the numbers. We'll

encourage... What you will see here

potentially is a private members

bill in some form will get to the

floor, the Prime Minister,

preumably if she's consistent with

what she said before, will vote

against it. Is that act on its own

the kind of thing that drives

membership, young activists and so

on into the arms of the Greens? Yes,

it does. Because the Greens - we

have a conscience vote on this, but

every one of us will vote for it

because we are a 21st century party.

If Catholic Spain can change the

law and South Africa and Canada and

Belgium, for example, surely it's

time that the Australian body

politic, the big parties and their

leadership caught up with majority

opinion across Australia and that's

majority opinion in all the parties.

Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott are

last century politicians, Hugh. No

wonder people do see the Greens as

the people who are leading on 21st

century policy. It's high time the

change was made, and is it got

through the parliament. There are

some that she it as nothing but a

distraction. I'll go on to other

issues, which are substantiative

ones. There are concerns expressed

at the moment that the entire

carbon trading system is on the

point of collapse. This is partly

due to the fact that where it's

traded in Europe the price dropped

from 30 euro down to six euro. Are

you concerned that at $23 an

initial starting price in Australia,

we are priced way out from where

the market now is. No, and that's

where the architecture of this

legislation which was driven by

Christine Milne is so wise because

it gives us two years in which

there is a carbon price, but not a

trading scheme. It's aimed at where

the projections, the best proplgzs

possible are for -- projections are

for 2-3 years down the line. Are

these projections out of date given

the realities of what we are seeing

in carbon trading at the moment?

Well, they may be too low, we have

seen the European price higher than

$23. That was in 2008 it was higher,

it collapsed substantially. It's an

important question. There's a price

that businesses are being told will

be the price. Yet right now it is

way out of line with what is the

international benchmark. You say it

will go up, it's a reasonable thing,

is it not time to revise that price,

because it is simply out of whack

with the market. Well, you know

again Christine Milne ensured there

was a floor price put into the

Australian scheme, at $15-$16. It

has that tkphrexibility, it's a

clever, smart -- flexibility, it's

with a clever, smart and wise scheme

with flexibility for the future.

Remember this: it is also aimed at

reducing carbon pollution in the

atmosphere in the world's worst per

capita polluting country -

Australia. It moves us to the front

line on that. We'll take a break,

there's a lot of issues to get

through with the panel, we'll

return with the panel. We'll leave

with you a little vintage TV to

prove some arguments have been

around for quite a while. Look, I

can accept the fact that he's gay,

but why does he have to slip a ring

on this guy's finger so the whole

world will know. Everyone wants

someone to grow old with, shouldn't

everyone have that chance? I think

I see what you're getting amount. I

don't think you do. Blanche, will you marry me.

(CRIES) (CHUCKLES) (CRIES) MAN: Some glues become brittle and break. Fix it so it stays fixed.

Selleys Ultra Repair - the ultra-strong, ultra-flexible glue.

Oh... If it's Selleys, it works.

Welcome back, this is meet r our

guest is leader of the Greens --

Meet The Press, our guest is leader

of the Greens, Bob Brown, welcome

to the panel, Lenore Taylor, from

'Sydney Morning Herald', and Simon Benson from 'The Daily Telegraph'.

Senator broip, Labor is likely to

support -- Brown, Labor is likely

to support uranium sales to India,

the motion is on the take now.

Isn't it fair enough given other

countries sell uranium to India, we

sell to China, are we taking a

stand on principle on our lonesome,

and what is the point of that? We

shouldn't sell uranium to China. It

has nuclear weapons, no doubt

fuelled by that uranium

fuelled by that uranium and

replacements, which can now reach

Sydney and Melbourne. India is one

of three countries in the world

that has not signed the Nuclear

Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is

to make the world safe from nuclear

weapons, and can't expect to be

sold uranium. Like John Howard, and

Tony Abbott, we have jil ard and

the Labor Party moving to do --

Julia Gillard and the Labor Party

moving to do that. This will make

for a much less safe planet as we

go into difficult regional and potential international

contkphricts over resources in the

coming -- conflicts over resources

in the coming century. How does it

make difference to the planet us

not selling uranium to India given

that everyone else does? Given the

reality of international sales, how

does our stance make a difference?

That's the heroin seller's lambet,,

"If we don't do it -- lament 'If we

don't do it someone else will", we

signed up to a treaty to stop this.

We had President Obama saying one

of the threats to the region was

the proliferation of the nuclear

weapons in our region, no doubt

selling uranium to India would

foster nuclear weapons ambitions,

ditto Pakistan, which will get

their's from China, which they'll

replace from here. This is a small

gain for Australia. These uranium

sales will profit people largely

overseas. We don't have a mining

tax on You rain yup, yet we are

putting -- uranium yet we are

putting future generations at risk.

I agree with Peter Garrett, I hope

he's heeded at the debate in the

Labor Party forum today. Given that

he's probably not going to be, and

the major parties agree on this, is

there anything you can do, I have

seen legal questions raised about

the legality of us resuming these

sales, do you have any avenue to

pursue your views. It is my belief

that it's illegal. It breaches our

signature on the keeping the

Pacific and the southern hemisphere

free of nuclear weapons, let alone

the nuclear proliferation treaty.

The treaties are signed by

Government, it's hard for

individuals to interject morality

or legalityy into that field. Our

job as politicians, as Greens is

going to be argued very strongly

for Australia's future safety,

rather than the lining of pockets

for a small number of overseas

mining interests which are wanting

to exploit Australian uranium. On

an economic matter we are familiar

with the line, "There'll be no

carbon tax under a Government I

lead", you are claiming there was a

bigger lie to emerge from the last

election, this one from the

Coalition, this is what you said a

couple of days ago. The biggest lie

of the last election turns out to

be a Abbott/Hockey lie that their

expenses were audited. Good morning,

Senator, clearly the Coalition has

been embarrassed by this latest

revelation. You have called it the

Great Lie. Considering they are not

in Government, isn't it a bit of an

overstatement? Why u does it make a

difference if somebody is not in

Government but wants to be and

tells the nation a lie on the run

to election on a fundamental that

they had their policy costs audited

when, in fact, they hadn't? It's a

terrible deception of the

Australian people by hok Hockey and

abadd in the run to the last

election -- Hockey and Abbott in

the run to the last election, and

we deserve betterer than that from

political leaders in this country.

No wonder Australians feel they are

cheated by the leadership of both

the big parties at the moment. On

that basis, we are talking about

creative accounting, what do you

think about the Gough's move to

surplus next year. I --

Government's move to surplus next

year. They used creative

accountsing to move the numbers

around, what do you make of that,

do you agree with Senator Doug

Cameron's views to having a fetish

with surpluses. Yes, I do. The

Greens have been saying we believe

while you need to balance the books

over the economic cycle, you don't

do it for the sake of a political

tick. Because it hurts a lot of

people. We know there may be 3,000

public service jobs lost as a

result of this latest cut back by

this Labour Government. Certainly

there'll be hardship passed on to

people in the community, which is

unnecessary, and fancy cutting 400

million from maths and scuns at

university if we are going be --

science at university, if we are

going to be a clever country. One

way to check costings is the

proposed Budgetry office, the Coalition doesn't like the

proposition before parliament. You

said you were going to try to negotiate with Joe Hockey about

that, have you got anywhere on the

subject? I haven't yet. It's yet to

be dealt with fully. This is a

Greens initiative, we put it into

the arrangement which saw the

Gillard Government establish, but,

of course, back then thekm igs was

of course, back then thekm igs was

support One quick question on

asylum seeker, a platform that the Labor

Labor Party shifted to increase

refugee intake to 20,000, part of

the deal of course is offshore

processing, is that an acceptable

arrangement? Well, the 20,000 is

Greens' policy. We have had that

for some time, Sara Hanson Young

has been promoting that. We have

the ability certainly to take more

asylum seeker into Australia for

the benefit of this country and the

asylum seeker but to make - to use

that as a ransom, to have offshore

processing, and it's an even harsher policy, the Malaysian

option than John Howard had in. It

cements effectively the John Howard

option of not allowing asylum

seeker to be processed decently,

humanely and according to

international law in our own

country. It's very, very wrong.

There's going - the Greens will

fight this tooth and nail in the

National parliament where we believe increasingly Australians

want - well, the polls show it,

decent processing of asylum seeker

on our own territory as every other

country in the world has. Bob Brown,

we are out of time, thanks for

joining us today on Meet The Press. Season's

Season's greetings. Coming up Jenny

McAllister, cartoonist Jon Kudulka

from 'The Australian' takes on

Labor's gay marriage debate.

Something in the closet you say -

no, nothing to see here.

Don't put it off any longer, mate. Spakfilla Squeeze & Scrape with built-in scraper. If it's Selleys, it works.

Welcome back, this is 'Meet The

Press', good morning and welcome to

the program the President of the

ALP, Jenny McAllister. Good morning. There's been compassionate debate

on a lot of issues, some over the

arcane internal thing of rules

within the Labor Party, here is

some from a young delegate. Will we

be a diminished and dissheveled

political course with no rang and

file members, because we refuse to

give them a say or will we be a

mass membership party, a party of

growth, a party that includes

millions of supporters around the

country who want progressive change,

who want a say or will we qive it.

He put the question, have you

squibbed T I don't think we have. I

went into the conference having

been through a ballot process with

all the members that Adam was

talking about then. The three

things I hoped for was was more

opportunity for members to be

involved in policy, and members and

supporters to be involved in

campaigns, not just electoral

campaigns, but campaigns they care

about, and opportunities for more

direct involvement of members in

the biggest decision-making forums

of our party, including the

national conference. We made

substantiative process on all of

those things. Whilst we didn't go

as far as some members would have

liked or, indeed, as far as I would

like, we've gone a long way, the

furtherest we have gone down this

path. I was happy with it. One

member that wouldn't have been as

happy with the outcome of the

reform debate is Senator John

Fawkner. I'd like to quote what he

said Friday, "We are at a critical

point, the situation is dire, our

party is in decline." Is he right?

I think John has taken the

temperature of members and he

understands that our membership is

looking for real leadership on

these issues. My own view is that

we are now well placed to take up

that challenge. I obviously have a

leadership role. But I think the

thing that heartened me over the

last six months is we have seen the

Prime Minister repeatedly step out

in favour of members and members'

involvement. She called for a big

conference, she called for a

growing party, she opened up debate

over the processes over the last

couple of days and stepped in

personalliester day to ensure that

there -- personalliester day to

ensure there'll be a component of

directly elected members. The task

is not done, there's plenty to do,

but we are on a pathway that may

see us address the problems Fawkner

identified. You mentioned

leadership and your role. One of

the votes yesterday was on giving

the President a vote on the

National executive. That was lost.

You were robbed of a vote yourself,

is that the reform you are talking

about. You must be disappointed

about that. I have a bit of skin in

the game on that button. Your view

is take this answer with a grain of

salt. Stepping away from my own

interest, I think members are

entitled to expect that the

President they elect is roted on

the National elective. I think

members will be disappointed that

didn't get up. It doesn't take away

from the big opportunities we have

to build new institutions and

forums and models for involving

people in the past. Wasn't this

conference the opportunity to get

representation of delegates to

conference, the big change that

would open up the party and let

members have more of a say. It's

been referred to a committee.

Nothing happened. This whole review

said you need to protect the

stranglehold of the National knoss

and leaders, they are the ones

determining the review. How can

that work. We have a new national

policy forum in place, that will

include 20 members from the rank

and file, sitting at a table as

equals with 20 members from the

parliamentary party and 20 members

from the affiliated unions, it's

exciting, we have started down that

path in NSW, I'm optimistic about

how it will work in NSW, and what

it will mean for our National

culture of debate, ideas and policy.

The second thing is we saw

yesterday a commitment to ensure

that at the next conference there

is a component of the conference

that is directly elected. It

shouldn't be surprising, but it

takes a little time to pull that

together and make sure that we get

the rules right. Right now your

numbers are bleeding numbers are bleeding terribly, John

Fawkner made it plain, the loss of

15,000 members, the Prime Minister

set you the task of finding 8,000

new members. I think it's great to

set the task, you want a leader to

come out and say, "I don't accept

this, I want us to move forward". I

believe it is achievable. Adam

Clarke who you saw spoke in the

same speech about what happened in Tasmania.

Tasmania. It had a lot more

individual involvement. Tasmania

gives power to members, and you

haven't replicated that on a

national level. Isn't that where

the failure lies, there's not

enough reason to joinism isks I

think we'll see the re-- I think we

will see the reforms coming through

yesterday providing more members.

It's something I'm focused on. You

see the Prime Minister putting her

shoulder though the wheel on this

issue. Speaking of the Prime

Minister, do you think she made a

mistake not mentioning Kevin Rudd

in her speech? I think we all

reflect, and the Prime Minister

also on the great heroes of Labor's

past. It's a great burden placed on

all of us to live up to those

standards. Is Kevin Rudd not one of

them. No, he most certainly is.

Everyone at the conference

yesterday, and certainly the Prime

Minister acknowledges the things

that Kevin did, and you saw in the

video the recognition, for example,

of Kevin's apology to the stolen generation, something that moved

all of us to tears when we saw it.

But it is also the case that Labor

has a sense of history. Kevin is

part of our contemporary story, not

the past. Thank you for being with

us today, Jenny McAllister, you are

probably racing back to the

conference to wrap it up. That's

right. Thank you to the panel,

Lenore Taylor, and Simon Benson, a

transcript and replay of program

will be on the website and Facebook

as always. That is the last show

for the year. We'll be back in

February with a new look, I'm told.

Thanks for watching, have a great summer summer break.

Supertext captions by Red Bee Media -

This program is captioned live.

Today - Labor blows its budget. But

all it talks about is gay marriage?

Julia Gillard changes tactics.

Should the Opposition

Should the Opposition change too?

Barnaby Joyce tells. Mal Brough's

new job - getting rid of 'Slippery'

Pete. And unspinning the Climate

Commission's new scare. There's

likely to be increasing sources of

injury death, grief. I'm Andrew

Bolt, this is The Bolt Report.

Bolt, this is The Bolt Report. It's