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.
Australian Agenda -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) I think we show ourselves

at this conference also to be

diverse in our views. We have

certainly had some very

passionate policy debates and

I think we have shown people

today and oh the last few

days in a conference that has

been characterised by serious intellectual debate, that we

are at our best when we bring

our views forward, when we

show that we have real

purpose in considering our

path to the future, and I

think we have done ourselves

proud and all the speakers

have done us proud in shows

intellectual activity that the diversity of rich

goes on in our party.

(APPLAUSE) I think we have

also shown ourselveses to be

egalitarian and inclusive. It

is hard to think of another

organisation where ministers

would come and put their

ideas toe to toe with

ordinary rank and file

members. I think it is also

hard to think of an organisation where a Prime Minister would come and rub

shoulders with all of us here

on the floor, part of our big

organisation. And I thank the

perform for her commitment to

this conference. She went out

very deliberately early their

this year and called for

abopen debate. She called to

invoke the spirit of openness

and inclusive ness we have

always thought was important

to our party. I think she

aught ought to be very proud

of what's happen ed over the

last couple of last couple of days.

I do think we delivered a robust debate. And the final

point I want to make is that

it was a respectful debate. I

think sometimes we are afraid

of putting our ideas forward

for fear that the things that

divide us will show us to be unable to continue as an organisation. But what the

last few days has shown is

that we can bring forward

this small number of things

where we have a different

opinion we can debate them

and things go on because we

you United in so many things

and this conference above

anything else has been a

reassertion of the values

that unite us, it's been a

reassertion about ambitions

reassertion of our commitment for equality. It's been a

to delivering prosperity for Australia, and it's been a

reassertion of the compassion

that we wish to show for the weakest amongst our

community. Delegate s I'm

extremely proud of what we

accomplished over the last

few days and with that I deck

the Australian Labor Party liar the 46th conference of

(APPLAUSE) closed.

The Australian Labor Party

is a party of growth, equity

and peace. Labor has been

absolutely fundamental part

of the democratic culture in

this country That's the end

of the 46th ALP national

conference. There Jenny

McAllister bringing things to

a close after a eventful

couple of days here at the

Sydney Convention Centre.

Welcome to a special edition

of 'PM Agenda' as we wrap the

last few days here and we

will start with a snapshot of

today's fieftdy uranium

debate.-- feisty uranium

debate. I believe we should

take a decision that is in

our nation's interests, a decision about strengthening our strategic partnership

with India in this the Asian

century. And, as part of

doing that we should remove

the impediment from selling

uranium to India. And

delegates we should take a

decision that is meaningful

too for Australian jobs. But

it's clear that to a

significant extent the international community has already made exceptions for

India. It's done so because

without nuclear power there

will be no realistic option

for India to contribute to

the capacity to expand without massive contributions

to global warming. It is

therefore our collective

responsibility to ensure that

we partner them and their

economic and social

aspirations, but also ensure

we assist them in reducing

CO2 emissions. We hear much

talk about the light on the

hill. I don't want Labor's

light on the hill to be a

green pulse ating nuclear

the world's largest light. If we sell uranium to

dictatorship in the form of China, and the world's

growing nuclear power in the

form of China, if we sell

uranium to Russia, why can't

we sell uranium to the world's largest democracy in

the form of India? Where is

our vision here? Where is

our commitment to a nuclear

free future? Where is our

commitment to things like a

nuclear weapons free

convention and where is our

insistence those values we

have stood for in the past

and those measures that we've considered were absolutely

crucial to dit arment should

be maintained. On that basis

we should oppose this motion.

So this has always been a

very, very difficult issue

for my family and my uncle

who was in charge of carrying

the Geiger counter around

said after thinking about it

choice don't be in it. So I for a while if you have got a

have never voted for it and

I'm not going to vote for it

today. I ask you delegates to

stick with principle, stick

with the principle that we

have done or else we will be

back here, we will be back

here at some future

conference going a bit

further, every conference we

have this debate. We settled

this last time. We settled it

stick to those principles. on the basis of principle,

The Leader of the House

Albanese and the senior left

faction figure of course in

the ALP we spoke to Anthony

Albanese on our Sky News

coverage. Myself and our

political reporter Ashleigh

at this conference, the left Gillon. Not having many wins

faction, yesterday the

conscience vote got up. The

Prime Minister had another

win today overturning the party's platform when it

comes to selling uranium to

India, it must be

disappointing? There has been

lots of resolutions carried

through the conference,

expressing changes to the

platform, in a whole range of

areas. Yesterday of course we

saw the ALP platform change

to allow for same sex couples

to enjoy equal rights when it

comes to marriage, and we

know now that will be

progressed by a private member's bill from Steven Jones. When parliament

resume? Are you Zap pointed

with that development

today? -- disappoint ed with

that development today? I

obviously had a different

point of view. I engage in a

political debate, I think

that we put our arguments,

very forcefully on the floor

of the conference. That I

think will send a very strong message about how important

it is that safeguards be

adhered to, it should bilateral agreement be

reached between Australia and

India to export uranium.

There was a discussion at the

beginning of the debate, one

of the speakers mentioned I

think it was Premier

Weatherill said it should be

issued the export of uranium.

Of course the nuclear fuel

cycle issues of nuclear

properly ifration, issues of

nuclear waste have not been

resolved and they are subject

to of debate. Not just in the

Labor Party but in the

community. Now you have lost

this debate how confident are

you that the Prime Minister

can come up with the

safeguards needed to ensure

Australian uranium isn't used

for the purposes we don't

want? It isn't used to create nuclear weapon s for

example? Well she will have

to satisfy under the

resolution that was carried,

the government will have to

satisfy itself that those

safeguards are there. So, I accept collective decisions

when they're made. And this

was, a collective decision

reached on the floor of the conference. So you can defend

this now? It was a very close

vote. I participate in a

political party, unashamedly

my job as Leader of the House

of the representatives is to

carry through Labor's

legislative program. The fact

is what we are seeing on dis

play not just today but over

the three days is the fact

that you have people who are

passionate about issues being able to debate them on the

floor of the conference, come

to a collective decision Do

you think this move will be

good for our relationship

with India? This is one of the themes that just kept

coming up in that debate,

putting your concerns about

uranium aside do you think

this move will be good for

that relationship? Are you

one of these inner west

lefties that orders butter

chicken from the local Indian

take away shop and think you

are an expert on India? Well,

you know, class in Sydney is

not defined solely by where

you live. And I live in a community very multicultural

and very proud too do so. I

learnt very early in young

Labor where I was lectured by

someone about living in inner

Sydney, when I went to their

house from my housing

commission flat, in the inner-city and went to their house with their swimming

pool and car that class in

Sydney isn't just defined by

where you live. And I think

that it was a bit of a go in

the debate, look the fact is

that our relationship I think

will be improved in terms of

our relationship with India

by this decision. I think

that's a fact. It's a matter

of balancing it up though

with the overarching

principle that doesn't signal

out India or any other

country, the previous policy

simply said and we have kept

it but with one exception,

simply said, nuclear non-properly ifr ration

treaty is a -- proliferation

treaty is a precondition. It

is not about singling any

nation out or one country, it

is an overriding principle

which is important. This has

been an area of great debate.

A faultline within Labor

politics for years. Is today

the last vest tour to that

debate? Not at all. Debates

don't ever conclude in terms

of that's it, we went dough

bait I - debate issues of

foreign policy or nuclear issue s every again. Of

course debate s continue

depending upon changed

circumstances. Now a majority

of the delegates to the conference have determined

that because of the change in circumstances there areally

the agreement between India

and the US, and those conditions that have been

changed, that that was enough

for them to make an exception

in terms of India, in terms

of exporting our uranium.

That's a decision that was

made but it was very clear

that it's a one-off decision based upon the particular circumstances that are there. But are you worried

now have you done it once

that the treaty has been dim

issue ed and -- diminish ed

and these sorts of agreements

have been diminished? I was

on of view and I made my comments on the conference

floor, I think it is a case

that if anyone saw the debate

and I think that the people

who were on the same side as

myself conducted ourselves

well in the debate, I think

we carried out an intellectual argument to defend the position that we

had, and I think that

therefore I think the idea

that were there to be some

other attempt to water down

the position that was adopted

today I think it's pretty

clear from many who watched

that debate it will be

resisted strongly by delegates. Returning back to

the gay marriage debate the

Leader of the House we will

see a private members bill

put into the House early next

year. We will see Labor MPs

get a conscience vote. What's

your best guess as to the timeframe where we might see

a change to the Marriage Act? Because with this conscience

vote it sun likely that

Steven Jones' motion will get

up is it? Well, one of the

things that the parliament

has is has taught me to count

to 75 and particularly in

this term. The fact is that

even if every single Labor

member voted for a bill and

those two independents who

are likely to support a bill,

the Greens party member for

Melbourne and Andrew Wilkie,

then that reaches 74. That's

still short. So it's pretty

clear to me that it was

always the case that the best

prospect of getting a

resolution through is for a

conscience vote. That is also

how other same sex reform

have happened in terms of if

you look at adoption in NSW,

the civil unions debate in

Queensland, legalisation or decriminalisation of

homosexuality across the

states that happen one by

one. So there seems to be

that it will now be the case

that there will be rank and

file members of the Liberal

Party and the National Party

who will be agitating, people

who are either themselves gay

or lesbian, people who have

friends, kids, relationships,

who will be lobbying on this

issue. And people who just

believe it's a fundamental

human right. So, I think the

pressure will come on and I

have no doubt that that

agitation will occur within the Liberal Party in

particular but also within

the National Party, and that

a conscience vote. We will

wait and see as people

actually exercise their

thoughts on this matter. This

should not be an ideological

matter, homosexuality is

something that just is there,

it's there, every where in

our community, not confined

to people who are supporters

of the Labor Party. And that

pressure I think will now

come on to say let's get

sensible about this, let's have a conscience vote and

let's see what the outcome is. One lift question before

we let you go, you have other

commitment this is afternoon.

The Prime Minister will be

voting in the parliament

against the party platform,

that's a bit odd, isn't

it? No, not at all. In terms

there has been a range of issues where Labor leaders

have been in terms of

conscience vote s since I

have been there have been on

different positions to what a

majority of the Labor Party

membership has been. Do you

think she is out of step with

the community sentiment? No,

I go back to voluntary euthanasia. I think this is

and I said this on the

conference floor yesterday, I think tolerance is important

in this debate and respect

for people's views. I

understand there is a whole

range of people, including

some of my family and

friends, who have very

sincere views the other way

to mine, what we need to do

is just have a tolerant

attitude towards that, have

respect for each other's

views, that are deeply held

on this issue. That's why a

conscience vote across the

parliament I think is the appropriate outcome for

this. Joining me on the

program I have the chief

political correspondent of

the 'Sydney Morning Herald'

Phil Coorey. Thanks former

your time. Give us your

assessment. Success failure

or somewhere in between? It

depends what side you are on.

There will be a lot of people

on the left who think they

won every debate but lost

every vote and the right is

probably claiming wild

success because they managed

to crush most things they

didn't want. They got rolled

a by on gay marriage. Looking

from the outside in there is

a few missed opportunities,

they made no real meaningful

progress on party reform.

The Prime Minister intervened at the last minute to sort of

keep the issue alive of

giving the rank and file a

bit more power but it really

got flicked off to a committee rather than anything meaningful being

done so you say they failed

on reform. Gay marriage, big

advance, big advance in the context, there was some

saying they should have gone

all the way and legalesed it

but that would have risked a

split in the party and Gillard sort of I guess defaulted to the right's position on that. But at the same time the platform

changes were significant and

I think the gay marriage

lobby would walk away with a

glass half full definitely

this weekend. Tony Abbott has

said today every vote in the

Coalition is a conscience

vote. When he was asked about this. What do you make of

that? Is that him sort of

backing away? Look I think

he's leaving himself wriggle room. In one sense he's correct. The Liberal Party

don't mandate a vote like

Labor, you can cross the

floor or technically you can,

it's not looked upon

favourably but you can do T

it is their right to do it as

Liberal MPs and, Abbott

previously said he wouldn't allow a conscience vote on this because he doesn't believe there is enough people in the Coalition to

warrant one. Now, since he

said that there has been a

few people, not a lot but a handful have gone on the

record and said we should

have one. So I think he's

just not per scribing or

locking himself in. He will

wait to see the legislation

next year. My guess is he will permit a conscience vote

if he is confident it won't

allow gay marriage to pass. I

can't see Tony Abbott that

will facilitate the passage

of same sex marriage through

the parliament. He will look

at the numbers, you will need

a lot. I don't think there is

enough in the parliament. I

said that yesterday and I

still believe that. If both

side has a conscience vote I

still don't think it will get

through and that's one of the

reasons why Gillard backed a

conscience vote. It is two

steps forward, one step back. The Prime Minister is

going to be in an awkward

position where she votes

against what is on her party's platform. Which is

interesting in itself, but

what do you think of the

Prime Minister's handling of

this conference? From the

speech on, how would you

characterise this weekend for

her? She has done all right.

She stepped in when she had

to and bust heads and get

things dup. I think she let herself down with that speech

on Friday. It's hard 20 find anyone who thought it was any

good. It was very flat and

didn't have any ready meat in

it. This is the speech to

launch the conference. They weren't stamping their feet.

They were clabing plightly at

the end. The thing had been

through the focus -- group ringer that many times it

didn't say much. It was safe

and uninspiring and she got

off on a flat note on that.

It was silly not to invite

Kevin Rudd. He obviously got

upset about it and hit back.

But other than that, she's

stuck her hand up where she's

had to. She led the uranium debate. She hadn't hidden

from any difficult topics she

moved the motion on gay

marriage and uranium. She is

not trying to hide from those

sort of things. She called

them both controversial and

both caused splits in the

party but she pet her name to

what she wants done and I

think she has got to be given

kred for that. What about

Kevin Rudd, you mentioned him there, apparently he will look at the legislation, any private member's bill that's put forward and make a decision then. I have got to

say that surprised me because

I thought he was an advocate

for the status quo as the

Marriage Act stands? Maybe he

has had an epiphany like a

few other people, certainly

attitudes have changed in the

Labor Party more on the right definitely. The left has always been pro gay marriage.

There is probably a few agendas driving Rudd's

thinking on this. He may want

to do the opposite to what

Gillard's doing just to decision associate himself

from her. She is locked in to

vote against it. He might

want to get to the hip cloud

and go with it but maybe he

has a genuine conviction,

maybe he has changed his

mind. I wouldn't like to

impute, him when I don't

know. The last conference he

request ed no debate about

gay marriage at all. Didn't

want to be distract ed by a

boutique issue so confined it

all to closed doors it elast conference. It was always

going to get out. It was the

right thing to debate at this

conference and it will have

to get resolved Great to

chat, thanks for that. Stay

with us after the break. We will be right back.

Welcome back to this

special edition of PM Agenda

as we look back at an

eventful full days here at

the ALP national conference

at the Sydney Convenience

Centre. We spoke to the Defence Minister Stephen

Smith a bit earlier and we

begun by asking him about the

feisty debate today on the

lifting of the uranium ban,

the ban on uranium exports to

India. That vote there were

again passionate debates, we

have seen on this issue, an

old faultline in Labor

politic force many, many

years. Do you see that now as

being the last step in that

debate today? A number of

delegates said that to them

uranium wasn't a closed issue

and this has always been a

conteshs issue for the Labor

Party. We broke the back of

the approach at the 1984

conference when we said we

could expert uranium from

three named mines including

Roxby Downs and Olympic Dam

which has grown to be the

largest uranium mine in the

world and, that export was subject to exporting to a

country that was a nuclear

non-properly ifration treaty

country I and bilateral safeguards for Australia.

What we have done in in the

case of India only is to

remove the Nuclear

Non-Proliferation Treaty from

the requirement. As Defence Minister now are you worried

that undermine the

multi-lateral treaty? No,

absolute not Are you

circumventing it though? The

reason we have made it on

this occasion and didn't make the change previously is

what's changed since the last

time we gave consideration to

this was that India has

voluntarily brought itself

under the regulatory

authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the nuclear

suppliers group. And it did

that to get approval of the

international civil nuclear

regulators of its nuclear suppliers agreement with the

US. That has comparable

protections that you would

find given so far as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Treaty country is concerned.

The aibl of international

atomic regulators to inspect,

a requirement to keep civil and military equipment

separate and undertaking by

India not to engage in

further nuclear testing, so,

all of those undertakes and commitments essentially

changed the nature of this

debate when the international

regulators approve ed that

arrangement in 2008-2009 and

that's been the reason for

the change. Now, plenty of

delegates were re-running

issues from as early as 1977,

through to 1980 through to

1984, but the change that has

been made is to essentially

say India has undertaken come

par ible arrangements to the NPT, India will never join

the NPT let's bring it under

the umbrella of international

rel regulators and there is

no reason if we can export

uranium to China and Russia

we can't export to the

world's largest democracy. As

Defence Minister can you

guarantee Australian uranium

won't be used to create

nuclear weapons? There has

never been any evidence or

serious suggestion that

Australian uranium has been

leaked or transferred from

civil nuclear purposes to

military purposes. And that's

because of our requirement in

addition to a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

requirement which is now come

parable as far as India is

concerned with the arrangements entered into

which I have outlined our requirement for a safe bilateral safeguard agreement

if India wants to receive our

uranium it will need to enter

into a comparable agreement. We have got some 20 odd agreements of that nature so we are well practised at

that. But, as Defence

Minister and a form of

Foreign Minister, this is a

deeply significant decision,

and very much a decision

which is in Australia's long

term interests. India, every

one sees the rise of China,

not enough people see the

rise of India. Like China,

India will be a world power

in the course of the first

half of this sentry. It is

the world's largest democracy, there has never

been a suggestion of any

proliferation from India's

civil nuclear industry, it

has undertaken come parable

obligations to the nuclear

non-properly ifr treaty so

far as those matters are

concerned so this is a

significant relation in terms of Australia's relationship

with India, it accords India

the status of the world's

largest democracy but also a

growing super power. As you know the Queensland

government, the Labor government in Queensland

doesn't believe in uranium mining full stop. Neither

does the Labor Party in your

home state of WA. Is that a

sovereign risk issue do you

think if Labor gets into

power in WA, at an election

in the future would that be a

issue? Both the WA Labor

Party and the Queensland

laebt have for some time --

Labor Party have for some

team des bait the change in

our platform have -- despite

the change in our platform

have not to allow uranium

mining in those two states.

The regulation of mining is

of course a matter for the

states themselves. Over the

years we have gone from in

the 1970s when Whitlam was

Prime Minister, to open

exploitation of uranium in

the 19 - late 19 7s and

early 1980 there's was a

moratorium or a ban. In 1985

we move to the three mines

policy and various since then

at the last conference in

given we have moved to

essentially the -- 2007 we

have moved to the capacity to

mine you rain uranium in any

mine in the country. WA and

Queensland have said they

won't authorise T I have said

to my colleagues on a number

of occasions I think they are

wrong. It won't be a

sovereign risk issues it will

be those two states knocking

themselves out of the

capacity to see development of uranium in those

states. Is there any sign

they might change that?

Obviously there is something

you see... Eric Ripper has

made his view quite clear.

He's not proposing to change

in the run-up to the next

Western Australian election.

Premier Bligh has also made

the same point. My own

judgment is I don't think

that that position is in the

long term sustainable for

either Queensland or Western Australia. But both those my

own state colleagues in the west and Premier Bligh have

made it clear that's their

position in not op oatsing

the change. -- opposing the

change. It was a closer

margin to what we saw on the

floor of the gay marriage.

But both issues the Prime

Minister's position carried

the day on the conscience

vote and then lifting the ban

on the sales of uranium sales

to India. How important was

it for her to get those through and she will

obviously be relieved this

afternoon, you would have

thourt her authority was not

undermined here? Relief was

not the emotion I felt when

the resolution was passed.

This is a deeply significant

decision. From time to time the Australian Labor Party

national conference get to

make an individual decision,

which has got deeply significant long term

strategic ramifications. So,

the emotion won't be relief,

the emotion will be this is a

very good thing that we have

done for Australia, for

India, and for the international community. A

very good thing. The biggest

challenge that Australia has

in the course of the first

half of this century is how

do we take part in how do we

manage, the rise of China,

the rise of India, the

ongoing rise of the ASEAN economies combined the

ongoing importance of the US, the ongoing importance of

Japan and the republic of

Korea, how does the world,

the region and international

community manage those

changing strategic fluxes. So

is this about lifting India

as a counter balance to China? No, this is about

saying to India, you are the

world's largest democracy, we recognise that like China you

are a country of 1 billion people, you will grow in the

course of the first half of

this century to be one of the

three super powers in the

world, the US, China and

India, we accord you that status but we have changed our position on this particular point. Because a

couple of years ago India

voluntarily brought itself

under the purview of the international civil nuclear

regulators, the International

Atomic Energy Agency, their

inspects can now go and inspect, the nuclear

suppliers group have also

have coverage effectively

over India, India has said it

won't engage in any nuclear

testing, it will separate its

nuclear and civil industries, so the reason we have made

the change now is because of India voluntarily placing

itself under the authority of the international civil

nuclear regulators. That is

comparable to the obligations

and undertakings that a nuclear non-properly ifr

treaty country would take. Just out of simp did

the Prime Minister consult

with -- just out of interest did the Prime Minister

consult with you before

making it public. She didn't

consult Kevin Rudd, did that

strike you as strange? I got

notice from her office the

night before that she was

proposing to make the announcement the next day and

that didn't cause me any

concern in the slightest. Have there are one or two ways a Prime Minister can

make such a change in a conference, can you go to the cabinet, the cabinet can make

a decision, can you bind your

cabinet, and then come to the

conference and say, the

government's made a decision,

please authorise it. And that

has significant implications

in terms of conference vote

ing down a government

decision. Or you can do what the Prime Minister did and

said in my strong view is

something that's right for

the nation and right for the

party. This this is my view,

I'm taking it to conference,

I don't think it will have

come as a surprise, it didn't

come as a surprise to me it was the Prime Minister's view, it wouldn't have come to the Foreign Minister's

surprise it was her view. It

is also a view he shares We

have seen a number of reports

of Kevin Rudd suggesting he

is very unhappy he wasn't

mentioned by the Prime

Minister at her opening

address to the conference on

Friday morning. Were you surprised he didn't crack a mention? I sat next to Kevin on a number of occasions yesterday and I haven't heard

it from him. I have seen it

in newspapers and I have seen

suggestions in newspapers

which were come par ible from

the same newspapers and same

journalists about comparable

events in the run up to the east Asia summit, to

President Obama's visit and

the caucus meeting and now to next year's budget and I

treat them with the same dismissive approach that I

have treated them in the

past. What occurred on the

opening day of conference in

terms of a reelection of the father's -- reflection of the

party's contribution was a snapshot what has occurred

over the last 100 or more

years of the party. And the

significant focus on that was

of course Curtain, Chifley,

Whitlam, Hawke and Keating as

you would expect. And I have

been around long enough to

know that the Keating

Government, the Hawke Government, the Whitlam

government, were all subject to very severe criticisms by national conference and by

the party but when the dust

settles and when 20 or so

years after those governments

have come and gone, when you

look back, you actually

discover very significant

achievements and the same

historical analysis will be made of the Rudd Government

and of the gill art

government when the come par

ible view of history is made.

It wasn't about the Rudd and Gillard governments it was

about our party's history. I

know were you dismissive of

those reports but I have

spoken to someone very close

to Mr Rudd who was, who

expressed those concerns

about being "Air brushed from

Labor history". I don't agree

with the analysis. Firstly I

haven't heard or seen Kevin

say that, whenever I see him

on your show on TV or

anywhere else he says he is very happy being foreign

minister and that's what he

wants to continue doing as he should. Time for a quick

break. We will have more on

our wrap up program here at

the ALP conference shortly.

Welcome back to the

special edition of PM Agenda

as we wrap up from the 46th

ALP national conference,

coming up on the program our

chats with the Trade Minister

Craig Emerson, and Labor Senator Doug Cameron. First

the latest news headlines

with Kate Williams in the Sky News centre.

An Australian teenager

caught with drugs in Bali has

been released from Indonesian

custody and is preparing for

his return home. The 14-year-old from Brooklyn

Park in NSW was caught with

marijuana -- Morriset park in

NSW was caught with marijuana

on 14 October and held every

since, he was told by the Gov

ners of Kerobokan prison to

stay away from drugs. Freed convicted murderer Jeremy

Gillan has spoken out saying

he is looking forward to

spending Christmas with his

family in Sydney. The appeals court quashed his convictions

for murdering his parents in

1993 and ordered a retrial.

41-year-old Mr Gillam says

the past week has been

overwhelming he is now

looking forward to spending

his first Christmas with his

youngest daughter and the

rest of his family. A search

is under way across Perth for

a man who shot dead another

man in the city's north.

Police say the fudge tooif

Haydon Shane Joseph is armed

and dangerous. He was last

see travelling towards

Kalgoorlie in a Holden Commodore. Hundreds of people

have been arrested across

Australia and New Zealand as

part of Operation unite. In

NSW more than 200 people were

arrested overall while in

Victoria 184 trouble makers

were caught. Last night in South Australia 24 people

were arrested. In New

Zealand, 760 revellers were

charged. The Republican race

for the White House is

becoming a two horse race,

after businessman Herman Cain

suspended his campaign. Mitt

Romney and Newt Gringich are

continuing. In the latest

case a woman accused Herman

Cain of a 13 year affair.

Updating sport, Australia has

won the first test with New

Zealand by nine wickets in Brisbane. James Pattiinson

was named man-of-the-match,

with three wickets in four

balls and six all up in his

debut test. After dismisses

the Black Caps for 150 in

their second innings

Australia chased down the 19

runs needed with the loss of

just one wicket. Tomorrow's forecast. Cool in the

south-east, hot and thundery

in the north and west. Now

the Trade Minister Craig

Emerson. Gill Ashleigh

Gillon and I spoke to the

minister earlier and began by

asking him about today's

passionate uranium debate.

You have been advocating

for the change, the arguments

are it's a good thing for the

economy, we did hear the

Prime Minister and a number

of speakers advocating your position were heckled,

someone yelled out saying that Julia Gillard is a

sellout, it is a debate that

is very divisive within the

party. It is a big backflip

for Labor? It has always been

a divisive debate within the

ein Labor Party. We do have

these big dib baits about the

future of this country, the

contest of ideas, it's a

battle of ideas some people

might say the battle field of

ideas when you listen to the

groups that assemble outside

Labor Party conference, we

have the socialist

international group here, we

have got those who are

against a carbon price, two

poll year ends of an argument

and the Labor Party charting a course through in accordance with our values

and that's what we have

done. Let's be frank, it is

really in large part about

trying to firm up a relationship with India

that's been strarned lately?

I put to these arguments for

the change, and they have

been put on the floor. It is

good for poverty aleavation

in India, good for the poor,

the 400 million poor people

who have less than 12 hours

electricity a day. It is good

for the environment in that

nuclear power is a zero

carbon emissions technology,

and it's good for Australian

jobs. So good for poverty aleavation, good for

Australian jobs, good for the environment. Not good for merits of international

treaties though is it because

it undermines that? There is

a whole lot of treaties

around the world that is true

and we are multi-lateralists

but India, has committed to a

safe and civilian use of

uranium. And let's respect

this fact, that India is the

world's largest democracy, it

is not an aggressive power.

And if we can export uranium

to countries like China and

Russia, we are precluding

India on what really, what

basis? I think that's the

question that has been asked.

And answered here today by a

majority on the floor of the conference. Why is nuclear power good enough for India

but not good enough for us

here in Australia? For

Australia? Well, I think the

reason in part is this, that

we have large reserves of

traditional fossil fuels,

where increasingly seeing the

substitution of gas for coal,

but we are moving to a low

carbon future. More and more

renewable energy sources will

come into play. So we are

blessed with a range of

energy sources that means

that we don't need to rely on

nuclear power. But if you

have got countries that don't

have these endowments and

they make the judgment that

nuclear power is the way

forward for them, why would

we then deny them that

capacity? How much is this

about building up India as a

counter balance to China? I

don't think it's about that

at all. But I do say this. It

helps that the US fits in the

US policies? Sure but you do

need to respect that this is

a very large democracy and I

think some of the comments

that were made there weren't

all 2345 flattering towards

ind -- all that flattering

towards India and I was a bit

upset to see those sorts of

comments made. India is a

great friend of Australia and

a great neighbour and we will

stand by them. And to suggest

that India's just busily making nuclear weapons so

they can lob them into our

countries, I think is quite offensive. Nevertheless, they

are the sorts of remarks that

are made on the floor of a

national conference,

Australia has been and always

will be. It is not just the

naek weapons that seem to be

dangerous, we have seen the fukshima disaster recently.

You heard Stephen Conroy your

colleague speaking about the

dangers. He spoke from his

heart and I absolutely and

thoroughly er respect that.

He got me in the Labor Party

he was 19 and I was a little

bit older Time for a quick

break. We will be right back in just a moment.

Welcome back to the

special edition of PM Agenda

one of the most passionate

speakers at this conference

has been the Labor nature

Doug Cameron in his normal

trademark fiery way he really

didline up the conference,

Ashleigh Gillon and I spoke

to him a little earlier. A

loss on the floor today

another loss for the left. A

loss and I am quite angry

about T I don't get angry

about too many things in the

Labor Party, I have had a

long experience of getting

defeated on issues but this

is just dumb. Selling uranium

to India, whose been in three

wars with their neighbour

Pakistan, and who are

continuing to develop nuclear

weapons is not sensible in my

view. But we sell uranium to

China, to Russia, why not to

India if they do agree to the

safeguards that we just had

the Defence Minister on air,

explaining that the

safeguards are the equivalent

of the NPT requirements

anyway? Well, let's see that.

George Bush couldn't get the

safeguards from India, the

Canadian s couldn't,one what

the Prime Minister or Stephen

Smith has done, so let's see

what the safeguards are but I

am a cynic on this. India

say friend of ours though,

are you saying you just don't

trust the Indian leaders the

Prime Minister then? I don't

trust India when it comes to

nuclear proliferation, they

are involved in nuclear

weapons, they are building

rockets so they can fire

rockets into the neighbour's

around their nation. I don't

believe that we should be

selling uranium to them. What

about the argument that it's

incumbent upon us to provide

a cleaner energy to a country

like India that needs

electricity as they are

trying to bring hundreds of

millions of people out of

poverty? If we were supplying

energy uranium is not clean

energy. I was in Spain

recently and they are just

not able to shut down the old

ageing reactors to the cost

of shutting them down. It's

just a huge cost. They leave

long term problems and you know, it is not a clean

energy. You are a union or former union leader, Yeah. You obviously

consider the jobs impact and

this is one of our biggest

trading partners so it's tens

of thousands of jobs created

in the Olympic Dam alone. One

of the weakest arguments has

been put up here today, and I

have to say, from time to

time jobs have got to make

way to principle. Sure, we

want to create jobs. Sure we

want people employed. But you

know to say that your

employment is based on say

mining asbestos or digging up

uranium I think you have got

to take a look at it and say

what's more important. And

sometimes have you got to say the principle is more

important than the jobs. The

one win we have seen the left

have was yesterday on the

floor of the conference changing the party platform

on gay marriage. Now we are

going to see this going into

the parliament early next

year in the form of a private

member's bill. But with a

conscience vote, what are the chances of it getting

up? Pretty good if... Really?

I would have said pretty

bad. No, pretty good if the

Liberal Senators and the Liberal MPs actually do what

they say they always do, and

that is act in - to their conscience. Malcolm Turnbull

I would think will support

it. That's one. Senator

Birmingham. Two. On we

government And on we go. But

you obviously have discussions, you have a fair

sense of how many. Is there

really a legitimate

chance? There would be

certainly I think enough to

take this over the line. And

so it should, it's the right

thing to do. Why, here we

are, having a big argument

about selling uranium to

India and saying that that

should be a conscience vote,

and saying that's not a

conscience vote yet you know

a conscience vote is about

how people relate to each

other. It's crazy We do have

a few hours left of this

conference, there is another

session happening there

afternoon but reflecting on

some of these changes, a

conscience vote on gay marriage, the overturning of

the ban on uranium sales to

India but also the change in

the party platform to approve

of offshore processing, this is something that I guess you

will be walking away from

saying, pretty disappointing

from your side of thing? Yeah

lots disappointments but some

really good things and I have

to say the change in our platform for marriage

equality is a big victory.

Two years ago no-one would have contemplated that could

happen. And I think there's

been lots of work done and it

and it's really great that's happened What did you think

of the decision by delegate s

yesterday to pretty much

ignore some of the key

recommendations put forward

by the John Falkner, Bob Carr, Steve braction review.

We are seeing this go off to another commity for another

review, it was a pretty weak

outcome. Yes not the best

outcome but it's an outcome and it is actually keeping

the whole reform agenda on

track. My view is that the

next time we come to this

conference we will have more

rank and file delegates here. Why did they squib

it? Because it's complex. It

is a really complex issue how

you balance up the various

forces, how you balance up

getting that extra people on

the floor. And, it just ran

out of time basically. What about Kevin Rudd's role here? There have been reports

today you have seen them in

the papers and elsewhere,

that he wasn't happy of being

air brushed from history in

that opening speech? Was

that a mistake? Would that

have been the Murdoch press

would is it There was some.

Having said that, I should

point out that I spoke to

someone very close to Mr Rudd

who used that term. Air

brushed from history. Yeah, I said this morning we should

recognise all of our leaders.

Kevin Rudd took us to victory

in 2007, over turned what is one of the worst governments

in this country and we should

recognise that and give him

his proper due. Do you think

he wasn't there in the opening speech as much as he

should have been? I don't

want to comment on the

opening speech but there is

concern he has been air

brushed out that shouldn't

happen. The live animal

exports is another issue the

left has had a stouch with the right over during the

course of this year. Do you

think that overall the party leadership is so worried

about being seen to cow to

you to the Greens agenda that

that's why we are seeing a

lot more of these decisions

going that way? I don't know

this arrangement about

cowtowing to the Greens

agenda, some of the issues

that the Greens are involved

in now are issue I have been

fighting for in this party

for nearly 40 years and there

is not... Maybe you should

join the Greens party? No, I

don't think I can do that, I

want to be in a party that

can actually do things and

make a difference and that's what the Labor Party is.

Thanks for being with us on

this special edition of PM

Agenda as we wrap up at the

end of the ALP conference at

the Darling Harbour Sydney Convention centre. Stay with

us now for now Sky News.

Live Captioning by Ai-Media