Pirate Congress 2020/Minutes

Please note that times are given in AEST (UTC+10:00).

= Day 1 =

Start of Day 1

 * Stream link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6U8PBgSJNc

10:11 Congress Opens

Miles Whiticker, outgoing President.

Acknowledgement of country. Miles on Jagera land, other Pirates on other nations'. Sovereignty was, of course, never ceded.

Housekeeping a bit different; we're all online.

Dave "Satch" Kennedy to be Remote Chair - speaker for the chat. Discord or IRC, but not YouTube.

Adoption of standing orders [10:14]
https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/National_Congress_Standing_Orders


 * Note that only Full members and Permanent Residents eligible for NC and DRC.

Alex: Let's have three minutes for voting. Standing orders not changed, but procedure agreed to.


 * MOTION: adopt standing orders.
 * Ayes: 9 (Miles, Satch, alexjago, Pip Foweraker, JohnA, mandrke, fred, FireABroadside, Parduss)
 * Motion carried unanimously

President's Report (Miles Whiticker)
Miles has been President for several years. "I've been with the Pirates since the start." 2019 a highlight with the election. Massive effort, par result. Averaged about half a percent across all contested states, WA a highlight. Congrats and thank you again.

Currently at a risk of deregistration. Formal membership dropping over the past few years. It's a struggle to self-promote, and our traditional target demographic tends to be apolitical. It's a huge amount of energy to campaign. "I hope that [2019] isn't the last election we contest, but it may be."

Intends to renominate - more on that tomorrow.

Finally I want to address things. Last year we launched a coup on ourselves. Post congress voting wasn't held. This wasn't malicious, it was a cock-up. Issues with IT due to lack of personnel, and NC lacking due to burnout after election. Everyone who nominated at Congress took their positions, with one exception. This year, we should avoid this issue.

Secretary's Report

 * As at https://discuss.pirateparty.org.au/t/national-congress-2020/2909/6?u=alexjago

Summary:


 * Thanks to all
 * Membership numbers critically low
 * Need more membership engagement too
 * Need to reform privacy policy so that Secretary isn't a communications bottleneck
 * People are both not responding to emails and not seeing them in the first place (i.e. spam-filtered)
 * Particular problem this year of voting system issue driving NC legitimacy question
 * Very little happened towards end of 2019 as a result
 * Takes primary blame for this

Questions/Comments:


 * Miles: we all share blame
 * Satch: I think there are external factors. COVID is nasty, lots of new single issue parties. I still have hope for the party, we have a pretty unique niche in our left/libertarian balance.

Treasury Report

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/w/images/5/51/Financial_Report_2019-2020.pdf
 * Corrections: $0 liabiilities, not $1, Mark is previous Treasurer not Secretary

10 minute break as per agenda [10:55]
Votes in favour of procedural motion: unanimous. (BrandonS, Pip Foweraker, Liam Pomfret, Miles, Satch, Parduss, alexjago, FireABroadside, fred, mandrke)


 * Resumption at 11:05

John August
Several time candidate, previously on NC.

Delivered a speech to HK students, speeches about intellectual property. Radio show. As far as the Pirate Party goes, we can have interest in our policies and run with that. UBI particularly pertinent in time of COVID. We have challenges getting the party out there but it's doable. I have a position statement on rent-seeking and I think we can position ourselves as the party of "enlightend capitalism". People mobilise with an election looming, but the sad thing is that we need to be ready further in advance.

CAP-0 Clean up the position descriptions in section 3.2
Put by: Alex Jago

Motion
Replace the contents of sub-sub-sub-sections 3.2.1.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3.1, 3.2.4.1 and 3.2.5.1 with the contents of 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.2, 3.2.3.2, 3.2.4.2 and 3.2.5.2 respectively, then remove the now-duplicate 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.2, 3.2.3.2, 3.2.4.2 and 3.2.5.2.

Repeal sub-sub-section 3.2.7 "Registered Officer" in its entirety.

Replace 3.2.8(1) with "Three (3) Councillors will be appointed by election at the Annual National Congress to the National Council." and repeal 3.2.8(2).

Rationale
Note to avoid ambiguity: all sections referred to in the motion are in Part III, section 3.2 "Positions".

In 2017 at the Emergency National Congress, we inserted a number of updated position-description clauses (as well as replacing the Registered Officer with a third Councillor). That all took effect at the middle of 2018 as intended. Since the old clauses are no longer operational, it is now time to remove them altogether.

Link to Discussion at Congress 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAsSMNNDfNA&t=8465

Vote

 * Ayes 13 (twisty, Pip, Liam, Brandon, JohnA, Satch, Miles, fred, alexjago, FireABroadside, jedb, mandrke, Parduss)
 * Motion carried unanimously, CAP-0 proceeds. (11:22 AEST).

Vote

 * Ayes (twisty, Pip, fred, Miles, JohnA, jedb, mandrke, Satch, BrandonS, FireABroadside, Parduss, Morpheus, Liam)
 * Motion carried, CAP-1 proceeds. (11:32)

Comments

 * Liam Pomfret, DRC. I think this is a good proposal. My experience is that this does happen.
 * I think there should be an additional provision that the DRC should also have the option to wind up the party. Not this time, but it should be considered.
 * I'll put my hand up and say I was the guy whose membership renewal emails got auto-put-in-the-spam.
 * Bryn: Note that party wind-up requires a postal party-wide vote
 * Miles: I don't think the DRC should have the power to wind up the party. This amendment is the simplest way to handle.
 * Brandon: we need a mechanism. This mightn't be the best but it'll do.

Vote

 * Ayes 14 (twisty, fred, jedb, alexjago, JohnA, Morphus, Miles, Dr Liam, BrandonS, Deadbeat, Parduss, FireABroadside 8MA_JBH, mandrke, Pip Foweraker)
 * Abstain 1 (Satch)
 * Motion carried, CAP-2 proceeds. (11:45)

Vote

 * Ayes 13 (fred, Pip Foweraker, twisty, Dr Liam, jedb, JohnA, Satch, FireABroadside, Parduss, 8MA_JBH, Morpheus, alexjago, Deadbeat)
 * Motion carried, PM-1 proceeds. (1:55)

Vote

 * Ayes 13 (twisty, Satch, Pip Foweraker, fred, alexjago, jedb, Morpheus, mandrke, JohnA, Deadbeat, BrandonS, FireABroadside, 8MA_JBH)
 * Motion carried, PM-2 proceeds. (11:58)

Vote

 * Ayes 15 (twisty, Morpheus, Dr Liam, Miles, Satch, alexjago, jedb, fred, Deadbeat, Pip Foweraker, JohnA, BrandonS, 8MA_JBH, mandrke, FireABroadside)
 * Motion carried, PM-3 proceeds (12:03)

Discussion

 * Satch: I don't think we should specify a dollar figure. Could well be too small.
 * LiamP: This should be a minimum figure.
 * BrandonS: a high dollar value shows we're serious.

Vote

 * PROCEDURAL MOTION: Amendment to PM-4; remove the figure of '10 billion dollars' from the wording and replace it with something more flexible.
 * Put by: Satch. Seconded by JohnA.
 * (replaced, see below)
 * PROCEDURAL MOTION: change the $10 billion maximum to a $10 billion minimum.
 * Put by: mandrke.
 * We'll treat mandrke's motion as an amendment to Satch's...

(moved onto PM-5 during re-wording)

Discussion

 * Miles: UBI erases the pointless distinction between JobSeeker and JobKeeper.
 * Potential for expanding by expansionary fiscal policy. Not afraid to go into deficit.
 * Note that JobSeeker and JobKeeper are currently higher than the proposed figure of $18,750.
 * Satch proposes putting basic income at close to 100% of poverty line.
 * Lots of comments (see chat log)
 * Mandrke: this higher rate is providing the first hope to people in a long time
 * Alex: The question we have here is do we go with the $18750 or do we switch to something that's about the poverty line as Satch suggests?
 * Pip: I'm in favour of the ACOSS poverty line as a measurement
 * JedB: Absolute vs relative poverty line issues
 * Miles: the absolute poverty line is international and a few dollars a day.
 * Jesse: Point is we should be thinking of adequate UBI amounts in terms of owner-occupiers and treat renters as a seperate issue. Rent assistance isn't designed well currently but it's still a valid way to deal with housing costs
 * JedB: by "absolute poverty line" I mean average minimal cost of living in current day Australia
 * Jesse: (note rent assistance currently feeds into higher rents because it increases as rent payments increase. If it were a fixed payment it would be less of an issue)
 * Pip: ACOSS has the poverty line as $457/wk for a single adult "living alone".
 * JohnA: comments about poverty line as by cost of living vs by percent of average income
 * JedB notes that the ACOSS line is a percentage of median income.
 * Terms: "Absolute poverty" = minimum cost of living. "Relative poverty" = under 50% of median income.

(breaking for lunch)


 * Miles: We have three diffent possible settings for the BI. "Absolute" as cost of living basis at $19K, "Relative" at 50% of median (this is the "poverty line), Jobseeker at about $28K as a more livable standard.
 * Alex: We should at least pass $19K plus a line about how we support the higher JobSeeker rate due to
 * Satch: We're going to be in a recession for a lot of years.
 * j​edb: something that hasn't been mentioned yet, is that there is a balancing act here between a high enough rate for people to decently survive on, but a low enough rate that there is still significant incentive to participate in the economy [ed: i.e. get a job]
 * Proc motion: PM-5 tabled to "the start of Sunday".

Lunch (Saturday)

 * Procedural motion: break for lunch.
 * Motion passed unanimously.
 * Breaking for lunch, back at 13:45 AEST.

Proc motion: suspend standing orders to allow a new policy amendment

 * Liam wishes to put an additional policy amendment
 * Procedural motion to suspend as much of standing orders as would prevent introducing a new policy.

Rationale
There are without doubt significant problems with racial discrimination in Australia today.

Regardless of whatever best intentions we may have with proposing the repeal of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), the lack of a clear replacement for 18C in our policy platform risks PPAU being seen as intentionally weakening protections against discrimination. This has already actively impacted on our ability to recruit and retain members, and to form positive relationships with other political and civil society groups who should be natural allies for us.

Until such time as we can elaborate on a proposed legislative replacement for section 18C, it is thus not in the best interests of the party to currently propose a repeal of 18C in our policies.

If and when this policy is eventually reintroduced, it should not be presented as "Repealing section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)", but rather as "Introducing [insert policy here]. These enhanced protections would replace those currently outlined in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)".

Discussion before the proc motion is put

 * Miles: This is a difficult one. It's cost us votes for sure. I don't know what to replace it with yet.
 * Liam: I simply feel that wanting to simply repeal it without some replacement is untenable
 * Satch: what if we just remove the "offend or insult"?
 * Liam: that's a next couple of months problem.
 * JedB: just so everyone is aware: as evidenced by the first amendment in the United States, if we establish free speech in a bill of rights then 18C will become invalid anyway
 * Liam: USA still has hate speech laws. I would agree it would make things simpler.
 * Alex: I've concluded that anything that says "repeal 18C" in the policy will not be read beyond those words
 * Note: even our bill of rights says no incitement, but offense isn't bannable
 * John/Satch: We're a left libertarian party. Not just a left party.
 * John: I reckon some people are looking for reasons to turn away from us and this is an excuse. That "if not for this they'd become supporters" is a larger claim. 0.6% in WA isn't nothing.

The Procedural Motion
Put by Liam Pomfret, seconded by Pip Foweraker.

Motion: To suspend this part of the standing orders:

(1) Motions to amend the platform or policies (including introducing new policies) (a) must be announced in writing at least two (2) days prior to the National Congress, and (b) may not be proposed on the floor.

Any further policy motions are to be treated as announced motions

Vote

 * Ayes 5 (Satch, Pip, Liam, Fred, FireABroadside); Nays 6 (Miles, JohnA, Morpheus, jedb, Parduss, Deadbeat); Abstain 3 (alexjago, mandrke, 8MA_JBH)
 * Motion fails; standing orders unchanged. (14:52)

PM-6A/6B remove/adjust the Job Guarantee policy
I will make the comment that the policy as it stands is still a "trial". But I would be okay if the policy is more marginalised or scaled down, or turned into a position statement. I note as it stands our policy is already less ambitious than the Green's proposal for a JG, although they focus on people under 30 whereas we focus on people who are in the greatest need. 6B at a glance looks okay to me, but I need to read it again before I take a position.
 * John: I think the JG guarantee is another one that turns people off
 * Both JohnA and Clive Myers (WA lead) put a lot into the campaigns last year and neither are motivated to stand with it in the platform. Note that both sunk a decent amount of their own cash into the campaign.
 * People who like the UBI tend to diss the JG and vice/versa.
 * Proposal 6A and 6B. 6B endorses limited experimentation. Not ruling it all out.
 * 8MA_JBH (Jesse Hermans, original JG author): I think John's point on the JG [policy] is fair enough.
 * Miles: yes, the policy is for a trial. It's a huge rationale, but still a trial only.
 * Alex: procedural note: we will put either, but not both of 6A and 6B to the online vote.
 * John & Pip: we should vote on 6A then 6B. More drastic change, then compromise.
 * Miles: as far as novelty budget goes, if people are willing to get over the party name then they have enough novelty budget for the rest of the existing platform generally. I've actually had more external resistance to the UBI than the JG.
 * Miles: the UBI and the JG are two pronged. There's a safety net in UBI for those who can't/won't work, but has idleness issues. JG solves idleness but isn't a safety net for those who can't/won't work.
 * Miles: JG is a mechanism to fund socially useful but financially unviable work.
 * What jobs are to be created are to be community chosen, this is libertarian.
 * Both 6B and our existing policy are both for a trial. Existing policy just goes into deep detail.
 * I (Miles) do political advocacy with concrete proposals. Don't just "end poverty", end it with a comprehensive plan.
 * Miles plans to put a (hostile) amendment to 6B.
 * Jesse: I'll jump in before that amendment. Context: I'm a pretty technical person. I didn't want it to be so technical, but it's controversial enough that I wanted to comprehensively prove it. If 6B passes we could put the original policy on a separate page of the wiki justifying it.
 * Jesse: In terms of the idea itself, it was a bit ahead of the curve, only 1-2 other minors looking at it. The Greens are now picking it up, it's getting momentum. Our version is perhaps more useful (focusing on greater need vs young people generally in the Greens' version).
 * The core question is whether we support the Federal Government putting up unlimited funding to create min wage jobs in the community sector. I think this is highly beneficial. Whether it's implementable in its entirety, maybe not.
 * I don't think we need the existing policy in its entirety now. The MMT genie is out of the bottle, we don't need to make the case in quite so much rigor.
 * I'm not really opposed to 6B. I don't think removing the JG entirely from the party is valuable, from the perspective of economic inclusion.
 * Satch: in terms of the coronavirus upheaval, our structures aren't really set up to handle it. This is a special time for special measures.
 * Jesse: yeah, COVID makes an impact. That's not to say that there isn't work that can't be done under COVID. If the 1.7M people currently unemployed, plus those dropped out, all asked for a JG job tomorrow it'd still be in trouble. There are elements of the JG that could be rolled out during COVID but it won't solve it.
 * In principle, it's not that COVID makes JG redundant, it's still achievable. Just to a lesser degree. 6B makes it very general which gives it flexibility.
 * I would support referencing the existing policy (from a 6B-amended policy section) as an example of what a JG could look like.
 * Fred: Doesn't UBI support volunteering though? Would those roles be the same thing that JG provides?
 * Jesse: there's various literature on what a JG job would be. Local councils, NGOs would be able to create JG jobs. This would feature sick leave, annual leave, all the usual employment things. This isn't just charities hoping for volunteers, this is creating positions. So this does take some tasks away from volunteering, but that's not a bad thing. People can still volunteer if they want to but we shouldn't rely on it. If an organisation can create a programme and then hire people for it, that's a good thing.
 * j​edb: the usefulness of JG vs UBI can be viewed as mostly depending on how automated society is; in a pre-industrial-revolution society you'd want pure JG, and in a post-scarcity society you'd want pure UBI.
 * John: I see a purpose for a volunteer bureau, work training centres, things that enhance socially useful work without the JG, with the UBI as a backstop for that.
 * Alex: a big proper grown up programme needs proper administration (which should be paid work).


 * The question arises: does either 6A or 6B leave the CES section intact? Clarifying motion put.


 * AlexJ puts a motion to clarify 6A and 6B to state that both policies break out the CES elements to a new policy.

Procedural motion: adjourn for the day [16:00]

 * Ayes: 11 (Pip F, Miles, alexjago, Liam, mandrke, Parduss, twisty, Satch, JohnA, Morpheus, fred); Nays 1 (deadbeat); Abstain 3 (jedb, 8MA_JBH, FireABroadside)
 * Motion carried, meeting adjourned at 16:03.

= Day 2 =

Start of Day 2 [10:03]

 * Stream link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvWrS9Mz68E

Proc Motion: move the remaining Policy and Position Statement motions until after nominations in the agenda

 * Put by: Miles Whiticker
 * Ayes: 11 (Morpheus, jedb, Satch, SeaBee, Parduss, JohnA, mandrke, fred, Dr Liam, twisty, alexjago)
 * Motion carried unanimously.

Miles Whiticker

 * Some changes I've tried in the last couple of years
 * Not necessarily successful but better than nothing, still some good
 * My focus this year will be preparing PPAU to be an advocacy group rather than a political party
 * Redirect funding to professionalising the party
 * we could hire someone to do the logistical work of the party
 * we could spend some money on sponsoring things like community radio, which are a cultural fit
 * grants for creative media
 * Alex thinks Miles is optimistic, Miles thinks it will work
 * Not proposing major structural changes... yet. "I didn't come into this Congress with the plan to do that"
 * Not planning to disband PPAU or not contest elections again
 * "I was at a federal politician's doorstop the other day and we would do a better job as an actual joke party"
 * "I have every intention of contesting elections again, though that may not be feasible in the short term"
 * No one else who does what we do. If not us, then who? We're here for a reason.
 * In this incoming term, I wish for your patience and support. I consider deregistration near inevitable. There may be a sudden reversal in our membership base, but I don't consider this likely


 * Satch: unpopular, but we should start doing targeted advertising.
 * Miles: FB a mistake here. Need to start doing


 * John: A while back we had a certain momentum. When we get away from being a party, there are other groups doing digital rights, civil liberties; where is our place? I have mixed feelings. I would prefer to say "let's run two plans - for registration and without". Simultaneously, campaigns are exhausting. You and Brandon seem to have had fun, I can't necessarily say the same. Need critical mass. If you want to move forward with advocacy I won't undermine you but let's try to stay a political party first.
 * Miles: shifting our assumption away from contesting elections frees up so much budget, energy and time towards other things.
 * Re other minor parties: there's always competition and cannibalism. To work together, we have to put aside a huge amount of ego. At the end of the day our members are Pirates for a reason. Various previous minor party alliances. Single issue parties especially susceptible to cannibalisation.
 * Satch: I want us to remain registered. If we retain registration, we remain relevant and that improves future viability.
 * Alex: ditto. Running people as independents not a great option.
 * Miles: my point is that things are down to the wire. We can run elections or we can focus on growing the party. I think we should retain our structure.
 * Alex: all the promotional things we should do now anyway.
 * Bryn: as always, we encourage people to actually do run. I think that nominations should
 * Some kerfuffle of who is the RO.
 * David "twisty" Read invited to be the RO.

Alex Jago

 * Joined 2014, NC Registered Officer 2017, Secretary 2018-
 * directing efforts towards remaining registered
 * need to reform our privacy policy so that local groups can actually self organise


 * Satch: bravo
 * John: I hope you and Miles can work things out. I'll keep an eye on both sides
 * Miles: a number of years ago the APF released a set of best principles for privacy practices
 * Liam: yep, that was us. The APPs.
 * https://privacy.org.au/policies/meta-principles/
 * Miles: the other thing you've mentioned is how our privacy makes it difficult to organise campaigns.
 * Liam: under "Proportionality" I've felt distributing e.g. state member data to state coordinators is OK.
 * Miles: would you be willing to put substantial time into that over the next year?

Stream issues. Procedural motion for a 5 minute break, carried unanimously.

Resumed from the break at 11:09.

Miles summarises the issues discussed before the stream borked.


 * Alex: I want to re-establish local organising.


 * Alex: Final comment: my goal as Secretary is to be challenged for the role next year, for the right reasons.

John August

 * Previously Deputy President and a Councillor on NC
 * Have stood for election several times.
 * Mark Gibbons, previous Treasurer, who John has a good rapport with, has stepped back a little. John stepping up.
 * As T, the role is to keep an eye on the dollars. It's amazing the atmosphere, electricity and motivation that happens with an election.
 * But to do an election properly you have to start planning well in advance of it even being called.
 * Even a placeholder single-state campaign can be done.


 * Satch: my preference is to remain registered. If too costly, we can run a less ambitious campaign.
 * john 10-15 years ago the reasons for PP formation were very resonant, not sure why less now
 * Miles: John, this is the place to talk about the future of the party, including your views.
 * John: I think we can stick our oar in in a few places. Foreign policy, economics, and of course our core niche. Whether we can articulate that remains to be seen.

Dave Kennedy

 * Stepped up last year to NC
 * Founding member, helped out with two previous elections in the past
 * Otherwise not massively active
 * Here to help
 * Personally relatively libertarian, civil liberties, personal freedom and anonymity and digital rights
 * Economically left leaning. Certainly don't identify with the mainstream left; too authoritarian


 * Liam: I honestly don't know how we could characterise the Left as being more authoritarian than the Right. The Right talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. In much the same way that we recognise an unregulated free market is desirable, so it is with e.g. speech.
 * Dave: I agree with that sentiment, I have a problem with criminalising words or symbols because they're so context dependent. Ban actions, not the words or symbols themselves.
 * Liam: I don't think anyone is going for that, except for ones that are very specific and with exceptions.
 * Miles: I'll jump in here. Let's return to nominations. As President and Chair I'll comment that we have to look to balance. There's a sliding scale or appropriateness. We have to be aware of authoritarianism from both Right and Keft. You can focus on either, but there's risk from both.
 * Liam: OK, what specifically policy-wise do you [DK] think we should look at over the next few years?
 * Dave: I got on board for the libertarian leftist combo. I was an activist in Brisbane around the rights of the individual and privacy rights. I want us to remain registered and contest the Senate and look to grow. It took the Greens 20-30 years to become really effective, for example.
 * I want us to continue to be a socially libertarian / economically left-leaning party.
 * Reiterates support for what is essentially our Bill of Rights speech policy.

Phillip Richards

 * "I'm here to join the oligarchy of the motivated."
 * I find it hard to disagree with any PPAU policies. I find it rare.
 * Not great at selling myself, better at selling policy.
 * Miles: what motivates you the most policy-wise?
 * PR: more motivated economically rather than socially. I think most of our social issues are almost there. Growing momentum and consensus on things like drugs.
 * Miles: What would you want to do project and organisational-wise?
 * PR: I'm open ended. Have ideas. Want PPAU to get into video explainers.
 * Special interest in NIT and LVT.

Fredrik Gerner

 * Hi, I'm Fred. Fairly new. Recently became Australian.
 * Guess my accent and win a cookie!
 * Fair to say I've been a Pirate all my life though not necessarily political.
 * I hope to make a dent in the Universe.
 * Don't want to deregister. I want people to realise there's a Pirate inside them that wants to get out.
 * Software developer focusing on QA.
 * More practically, I want to work on the website.
 * Alex interjects: Oh, Fred, I have use for you.
 * English *is* my second language, when I don't have a word, I make up one. So I hope I don't offend anybody.
 * Privately I've been volunteering with the SES. More parenting work now.
 * When it comes to policies, what really interests me is the UBI. I think that's the key. But there is more: immigration, education.
 * What attracts me to the party is the opinion about the digital realm


 * Miles: would you be more interested in working on the party's technical side, or the front facing press release, policy development side?
 * Fred: interested in both really. I like to argue my piece. One of my newest interests is coaching and human development. I've recently taken a course in neuro-linguistic programming. I like the human psyche side of it.
 * Miles: would you be interested in doing more international / migrant outreach with people from your cultural background?
 * Fred: yes, but I don't know how many we have!
 * Fred: William has the closest accent guess. I'm Swedish.
 * Fred: my first software job was in the same building as where TPB started.

Brandon Selic [17:13]

 * Refer to Nomination on the wiki
 * Brandon defaults to and accepts nomination

Pip Foweraker

 * I'm new to most of you, so I'll lead off with my professional background
 * Nearly all my working life I've been a public servant, dealing with policy creation and application
 * Most of that has been done under the auspices of the public service acts
 * Consideration of policies under the same standards we hold here
 * Some of my decisions were appealed, generally upheld
 * I've worked with housing affordability and community housing
 * ... and the building industry. Spectacularly corrupt, very interesting.
 * I've written, implemented and managed more recently.
 * REcent work is corralling expert's work and making it more palatable. Translating engineer/management and back
 * Also a MTG judge. Good at nerd herding.
 * Loosely associated with PPAU. Limited contribution due to job.
 * Could've been me or Tom in 2013 but I would've had to quit.
 * Now working for a bank, so I can actually help out.
 * It's about time, energy and coordination. 100 lurkers, 10 contributors, 1 instigator.
 * I'm generally happy to be the instigator as long as people tell me how I'm wrong in a reasonably polite fashion.
 * I'm already starting to put effort in this Congress.
 * Want to put effort into making our policies robust and accessible.
 * In giving consideration to this role I've started reaching out to my professional network for policy input.
 * Broadly in favour of most of our policies. I don't have strong opinions on flavour, so much as being a moderator. Seeking party consensus. This is a "kick me" sign but that's OK.


 * Miles: Back in 2016, Congress was in Hobart. I was there, have we met?
 * Pip: No, I'm one of the people who've been let down by email. Tom Randle and I go back to high school.
 * Miles: yeah, the emails thing is an unpleasant reminder.
 * Pip: I actually worked for Wizards of the Coast for a while.
 * Miles: you say you'd like to work on policy collation, but not so much flavour?
 * Pip: I don't have strong technical opinions on most things. Suppose we wanted to flesh out our animal welfare policy, I'd come in with an open mind.
 * Miles: this isn't really part of the PDO but it is policy related. Every so often a bill is before Parliament and we will want to prepare a submission and a press release. Would you be interested in that?
 * Pip: yeah, I assumed I would be helping with that and am happy too.
 * Miles: yes, we're all volunteers.
 * Miles: while we have an annual policy adoption process. Submissions are all the time. Reading legalese... not everyone is good at that.
 * Pip: yes, I have drafted the policy regulating all building approvals in Victoria. I can read legalese :)
 * Pip: in terms of the workload, I was thinking I could manage about 5 hours a week on average. If I'm overwhelmed, I'll say so.
 * Miles: You mention housing policy and affordability. What do you see with regards to UBI policy, the campaign to keep welfare raised after COVID ends, and housing affordability?
 * Pip: yes, the housing department have a graph with affordability vs political feasibility. It's not well correlated. The big ones are a modification to CGT rules and quarantining negative gearing to housing related income. These would have the biggest impact, and are the least likely. This document is an FOI away.
 * Pip: I am personally hugely in favour of UBI as a concept, agnostic to mechanism.
 * Parduss: If it's questions related to housing affordability, what would be your opinion on Land Value Tax and it's ability to drive down land prices?
 * Pip: I hadn't put a lot of thought into LVT. Seems sensible, ties in with my and PPAU philosophy about managing wealth and collective assets. Best tied in with other tax reforms. Not a silver bullet. Any meaningful changes to housing affordability will piss off the rich. Requires a very well thought out campaign.
 * Miles: you don't have to answer this one. You say you've worked with an organisation about housing affordability. Can I ask your opinion on the ABCC and the CFMEU?
 * Pip: big fan of unions. Saved me. I'm not confident about the rest. There's tension between such an economically important industry. Always going to be corruption without strong regulation. Have to balance blue collar negotiation for pay and conditions, need for safely and well constructed housing. I was part of the team that dealt with flammable cladding issue.
 * Miles: last policy question: do you have a opinion on connection between housing affordability and environmental impacts from land clearing?
 * Pip: I haven't spent a lot of time on it. Was lucky to hear from an American expert at Plan Melbourne. Australians are very attached to single family housing... and now we have two hour commutes. Their position, which DELP adopted, was to aim for medium density, 3-4 story apartments by densifying around rail. I think this is the right policy setting for our major cities to adopt.
 * Miles: followup housing qn: are you familiar with the Nightingale housing model?
 * Pip: yes. Closest thing we had is a "salt and pepper approach" - you can have this DA but 10% needs to be public housing. On the environmental side, strongly in favour of reducing energy consumption etc. Green walls/roofs very nice.

Liam Pomfret

 * Oldtimers will know me, I've been around since before the formal registration. There from almost the start in Brisbane.
 * For most of the last decade I was PhD-ing. Also heavily involved with the Australian Privacy Foundation and eith Electronic Frontiers Australia. Hence less involved with the party.
 * When I joined PPAU we were basically a single issue party but we have expanded since then. While I do quibble with certain things - i.e. 18C - but I am firmly committed to our core ideals.
 * Certain parts of our core platform - our commitments to civil liberties and social equality/justice
 * Due to my civil society obligations, I feel like DRC and advisory positions are as involved as I can get
 * So DRC is a good fit for me, because I'm not more involved
 * Previous Qld State Coord
 * Stood for party in 2013, probably not again though
 * Still looking for ways to contribute
 * My research is about consumer privacy, so I can definitely contribute to privacy policy updates
 * I do see that with COVID, while civil liberties policies are important and make or break, we need to look at economic issues. Feeding yourself next week tends to take priority.
 * Given we were throwing around geek cred earlier, I should note that I've been playing D&D since it was D&D, and that I own Bulbapedia.

5 minute break

Proc motion to hear Bryn's nomination before lunch. Carried.

Bryn Busai

 * In contrast to Liam, I'm probably a bit too partial.
 * Have attended all NC meetings this year, helped kickstart things again.
 * I want to help keep the party running. Not the best speaker, ask questions.


 * JohnA: "good on you for stepping up".

Procedural motion to reopen nominations for the three Deputy roles

 * MOTION: Suspend section 2 (1) of the standing orders such that nominations for electable positions may be made on the floor of congress. Any such floor nominations may be heard at the end of policy motions on Sunday.
 * Put by: Miles Whiticker
 * Ayes: 10 (Satch, JohnA, Parduss, Miles, mandrke, alexjago, fred, PipF, Deadbeat, FireABroadside); Nays 0; Abstain 0.
 * Motion carried, nominations re-opened to be heard at the end of the day. (10:51)

Lunch [13:00]

 * Start 13:00, end 14:11

Elections continued [14:11]

 * Miles Whiticker defaults to and accepts President.
 * Alex Jago defaults to and accepts Secretary.
 * John August defaults to and accepts Treasurer.
 * Fred Gerner, Phillip Richards, David Kennedy default to and accept Councillor. (3 nominations, 3 positions.)
 * Pip Foweraker defaults to and accepts Policy Development Officer.
 * Dr Liam Pomfret, Bryn Busai default to and accept Dispute Resolution Committee. (2 nominations, 2 positions.)

Discussion cont.

 * Miles: Still figuring out the dollar figure
 * Satch: I propose removing the dollar figure, replacing it with something more dynamic. The recession will change the political landscape
 * "allocating the funds necessary"
 * Pip: What if we just removed the second sentence?
 * Satch: alternative to specify it as a portion of the budget.

Motion to amend PM-4

 * Motion: That PM-4 be amended to remove the second sentence of the text.
 * Put by: Pip Foweraker
 * Ayes: 14 (twisty, Satch, Parduss, alexjago, Morpheus, Pip, JohnA, fred, Deadbeat, Dr Liam, jedb, FireABroadside, BrandonS, 8MA_JBH); Nays 2 (Miles, mandrke);
 * Motion carried; PM-4 amended. (14:55)

Motion to adopt PM-4 as amended

 * Put by: Miles Whiticker
 * Ayes 15 (Miles, Satch, Pip, Liam, Parduss, mandrke, fred, alexjago, 8MA_JBH, Deadbeat, JohnA, jedb, FireABroadside, Morpheus, twisty).
 * Motion carried; PM-4 proceeds. (14:59).

PM-5 continued [16:04]

 * Miles amends his own motion to be a $64K threshold and still a 37.5% rate.
 * Alex notes the budget impact number in "Balancing Revenue" and suggests delegating to committee to be mechanically updated later.
 * Satch wants to put it to a committee in general. PDC, assemble!
 * Alex: NC should organise a Policy Meeting to consider this ASAP.

Procedural motion to punt to the PDC

 * MOTION: Place PM-5 in a committee, that being the Policy Development Committee, and require the incoming National Council to hold a Policy Meeting to consider the PDC's report is they return it before the end of 2020.
 * Put by: Alex Jago
 * Ayes 4 (JohnA, Parduss, fred, Morpheus); Nays 6 (Miles, Alex, twisty, Pip, Liam, Deadbeat); Abstain 4 (FireABroadside, jedb, 8MA_JBH, mandrke)
 * Motion fails. (16:21)

Final vote as amended

 * MOTION: MOTION: Adopt PM-5 as amended (increase tax free threshold to $64,000 thus increasing the UBI base rate to $24,000)
 * Ayes 13 (Miles, jedb, twisty, Morpheus, Liam, alexjago, Parduss, Deadbeat, mandrke, FireABroadside, JohnA, 8MA_JBH, Pip); Nays 0; Abstain 1 (Satch)
 * Motion carried; PM-5 proceeds. (16:25).

PM-6A/B [15:00]

 * MOTION: amend PM-6A and PM-6B to protect the CES sections.
 * Put by: Alex Jago
 * Agreed to by John August.
 * (time: 15:03)

Decided to vote on 6A, then 6B.


 * Satch: In practice, when people are given greater disposable income, they spend it. So the cost of living will rise with it.
 * John: main goal of UBI as we do it is removing the poverty traps.

Vote on 6A

 * MOTION: Adopt PM-6A (as amended)
 * Put by: John August
 * Ayes 7 (JohnA, twisty, Morpheus, Parduss, Satch, Dr Liam, fred); Nays 6 (Miles, Deadbeat, 8MA_JBH, alexjago, FireABroadside, Pip); Abstain 2 (jedb, mandrke)
 * Motion ???. (Later set aside). (15:18).

Question as to whether a simple or absolute majority is meant by 2(7) in the Standing Orders. [15:19]

 * The line in question: "A majority vote of those present is required for the motion to be carried and placed to a final online vote of the members."
 * Liam (in his capacity as a DRC member): I would be inclined to move onto 6B, which may well have a better chance of passing.
 * Miles (in his capacity as The CHAIR): I think this should be an absolute majority and will put a motion to that effect.
 * Others disagree
 * Put to a motion, see below.

Vote to set aside the previous vote on 6A

 * Ayes 9; Nays 1; Abstain 3.
 * Carried. (15:48)

Second vote on whether to adopt 6A

 * Ayes (5): fred, parduss, twisty, mandrake, john. Nays (8): miles, deadbeat, pip, fireabroadside, morpheus, jessie, liam, alexjago. Abstains (1) jedb.
 * Motion failed; 6A fails. (15:51)

Vote on 6B [15:52]

 * Ayes 11 (JohnA, twisty, fred, pip, jedb, Liam, Parduss, mandrke, alexjago, Satch, Morpheus); Nays 2 (Deadbeat, Miles); Abstains 2 (8MA_JBH, FireABroadside)
 * Motion carried; PM-6B proceeds. (15:56).

PS-1: Rent Seeking and Bureaucracy [14:30]
Put by: John August

Motion
Adopt the Rent-Seeking and Bureaucracy position statement, detailed here.

Rationale
While reviewing our position around UBI, we developed an appreciation for the worth of the CES and the worth of appropriate Government involvement in the economy, with particular regard to rent-seeking, prompting the adoption of this Position Statement. This is particularly apt if the Job Guarantee Policy is removed, as its one partial merit, in my [John's] view, was the recognition of the worth of the CES.

Discussion

 * John: this came out of the JG removal policy from last year.
 * If you actually talk to people from the CES, they placed 20 jobs a day.
 * Much lower bang/buck today with the private job service providers.
 * It's worth talking about and identifying the ways that bureaucracy can go wrong.
 * And it's worth talking about rent-seeking and how businesses can abuse their position.
 * It can be hard to articulate how things are bad. I think it's useful for PPAU to say something.
 * I think this is a worthwhile extension of PPAU views.
 * Miles: I would've liked this to add something about copyright policy, and about the corruption links. Next time I guess.
 * John: that's an oversight. Would be a good tie-in. Also trying to be briefer and focus on the CES. Our policy doesn't cover rentseeking quite so much as it already does intellectual property.
 * This is inspired by Cameron Murray.

Vote

 * Motion: adopt PS-1
 * Put by: JohnA
 * Ayes: 15 (Miles, twisty, jedb, PipF, mandrke, Parduss, alexjago, fred, Dr Liam, Deadbeat, FireABroadside, Satch, BrandonS, 8MA_JBH, Morpheus)
 * Motion carried; PS-1 proceeds (14:44).

PS-2: Free Speech, Hate Speech and Section 18C [16:26]
Put by: Miles Whiticker

Motion
Adopt the Free Speech, Hate Speech and Section 18C position statement, detailed here.

Rationale
Party Member Liam Pomfret and others have noted that the "Repeal 18C" section of our policy has lost us members and turned away other prospective members. Having run for election, myself and other previous electoral candidates can attest to this effect. It's often misunderstood, or seen as a problem with our platform. This position statement clarifies our intent to amend 18C rather than remove it, while acknowledging the value we place on free speech.

Discussion

 * jedb: This proposed position statement PS-2 on repealing 18C is not something that we should be considering, as position statements not requiring a minimum period of prior notice, unlike policy motions, is an oversight.
 * jedb: Furthermore, PS-2 is not something that we can consider, as it contradicts currently held policy on freedom of speech and a bill of rights. In particular all the mentions of not regulating opinions and being against hate speech laws. Before we could adopt any such position statement we would have to significantly restructure both policies.
 * jedb: Section 18C is a mixture of things that should not be unlawful, such as offensiveness and insults, and things that are already crimes, such as intimidation. The notion that protections against things like intimidation are insufficient is laughable. To use but one state's example, in NSW such a crime can attract a prison sentence of up to 5 years.
 * jedb: The proposed position statement points out that this whole issue is caused by tribalism and misunderstanding, but rather than any attempt to clear that up, elects to go against core values and policies. A move that will only confuse things further.
 * jedb: What is going on here is that we have members, such as Liam, who have twisted their thinking to the point where they genuinely believe that censorship is something to be celebrated. We also apparently have members who, as part of election campaigns, went against party policies. Both of these things should be highly concerning.
 * jedb: I wrote a very rough draft of a more sensible position statement last night, however the lack of polish on both my version and Miles' version merely goes to back up that adopting position statements on the run, like policy on the run, is not something we should be doing.
 * Miles: I think this is constitutional. I admit it is a loophole.
 * Liam: There's a substantial difference between government use of force and private actions
 * Liam: we shouldn't be surprised that we have trouble attracting women and minorities when people say things like this
 * Liam: this is a huge sticking point to us; so many people who have otherwise demonstrated their bona fides
 * Liam: our 18C policy made sense at the time, I agree that 18C is shoddy. I won't relitigate 18C and I do think we need a replacement to our policy outlining the right to *not be discriminated against*

Procedural motion: 5 minute recess.


 * Miles: I think that speech which advocates harm we are still opposed to.
 * Liam re-asserts a difference between government censorship and private deplatforming.
 * jedb: deplatforming is when activists persuade a platform to remove a person, despite the platform and person being fine with the arrangement previously, it is most definitely censorship
 * Liam: deplatforming is a corporation responding to a boycott
 * Liam: additionally, yesterday you asked me to prove that there was significant racial discrimination in Australia. From my perspective, I cannot have a good faith debate with you
 * Miles raises the issue of pseudo public spaces
 * Liam: yes, I am aware. My PhD touches on this. It is difficult for someone to opt out of certain social media platforms. I experience this myself with Facebook. But media is not forced to transmit other people's speech. It's thorny and separate from 18C.
 * Miles: We all generall agree that "offend" and "insult" should be removed from 18C. The crux of this is whether existing protections are sufficient.
 * Satch: there needs to be an actual victim.
 * Liam: we do need to consider systematic harm. Beyond physical and financial; mental harm is diagnosable.
 * Pip: can we either timebox this discussion or move it forward? I don't think we'll get new evidence or position shifts in a useful timeframe.
 * Liam: Miles has introduced at least a position statement. Without wanting to relitigate yesterday...
 * Satch: as a libertarian party, we should keep focus on actual harms. If there's an actual victim that can demonstrate harms, we have laws that cover that.
 * Miles: I would like to take some of Jed's comments on board, while still addressing this with some urgency.

Miles puts the motion for the position statement.


 * Alex: this is a statement of intent. It doesn't solve the core tribal-marker problem.

Vote: Adopt PS-2

 * Ayes: 8 (Liam, fred, Satch, FireABroadside, mandrke, Miles, Pip, Morpheus); Nays 2 (jedb, Deadbeat); Abstain 3 (alexjago, JohnA, twisty)
 * Motion carried; PS-2 progresses. (17:03)

Qualify whether absolute or simple majority [15:32]
Original motion (15:33):
 * PROCEDURAL MOTION: permanently amend the congress standing orders with immediate effect such that the term "A majority vote of those present" be replaced with "An absolute majority vote".
 * RATIONALE: under the constitution, the definition of "absolute majority" includes "those who have a right to vote" which for congress motions requires that they be a full member, in attendance, and informed the secretary of their attendance.
 * Put by Miles Whiticker.
 * Not voted on in its original form.

Alex argues against that this requires the Secretary to keep track of who is AFK. Announces intent to launch procedural motion to amend Miles' to make it be simple majority.

Consensus that non-responses do not make an Abstention.

Miles presented a revised motion

Motion [15:39]
PROCEDURAL MOTION: Permanently amend the congress standing orders with immediate effect such that the term "A majority vote of those present" be replaced with "A simple majority vote" as defined by the constitution.

Rationale
Under the constitution, the definition of "simple majority" matches most closely with standard practice in this and prior Congresses.

Vote

 * Ayes 9 (Pip, Satch, fred, jedb, mandrke, 8MA_JBH, FireABroadside, Morpheus, BrandonS); Nays 1 (twisty); Abstain 3 (Deadbeat, Parduss, Dr Liam)
 * Motion Carried. Standing orders amended. (15:41)

Close the position statement loophole [17:04]

 * PROCEDURAL MOTION: Permanently amend congress standing orders to take immediate effect such that section 3 (1) be changed to read "Motions to amend the platform or policies (including introducing new policies and position statements)"
 * Carried unanimously. (17:07)

Next Congress Location [17:07]

 * Miles proposes online again
 * Liam: I am inclined to nominate a location for "if we can"


 * MOTION: National Congress 2021 to be held entirely online, like this year
 * Ayes _ (Parduss, Miles, mandrke, fred, Deadbeat, twisty, Satch, Aye); Nays 1 (jedb); Abstain __ (JohnA, Morpheus, alexjago, Dr Liam, Pip).
 * Motion carried (17:11).