Pirate Congress 2014/Minutes

Note, these minutes are an unrefined rough draft version and are currently being worked on

=Day One: Saturday, 19 July 2014=

President opens Congress, housekeeping and adoption of standing orders

 * summary to be transcribed

PROCEDURAL MOTION: standing orders

 * MOTION: Accept the standing orders as written.
 * Put by: Simon Frew
 * No objections, motion carried unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 11 (George, CAPT-Irrelevant, tserong, David, Wendy_MsGator, Rundll, Aaron, unraveled_SamB, jscinoz, JoeMilesMob, hanrahan); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

Simon Frew (President)

 * Ran in several elections.
 * Very good results, in some places more than 0.5%
 * The delay in getting registered was very useful to help the party mature
 * Good to see that other parties are adopting our policies or similar.
 * Pirate Parties are needed now more than ever.


 * Transparency essential, especialy in light of dissapearance of refugees and proposed copyright reforms
 * Expanding the platform working quite well and helps us develop a broader appeal
 * Policies widely supported with the lowest pass percetage being over 80%
 * Need to prepare for future possible double dissolution votes etc and to run in future elections

Daniel Judge (Secretary)
Will transcribe a summary of this --- Mozart.

Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer (Deputy Secretary):

 * running in elections is very distracting from our other tasks and activities
 * been very busy and a lot of work done by people like brendan, needto bring inand engage other members to take the pressure of the core group and engage membersmore to share workload
 * main challenge more successfully engage more members beyond people who can be in front of computer all day

Brendan Molloy (Councillor)

 * Round of applause & congrats for all our candidates
 * especially Mel, who ran twice and smashed it in Griffith with 1.5% vote coming fourth
 * also Fletcher for the running in WA at short notice with less ground support due to distance

Melanie Thomas (Deputy President)

 * Only minor party to reach 1000 votes in Griffith by-election
 * need to keep the momentum moving
 * developing state branches is impoirtnat, especially in regard to local/state issues

Financial report

 * arrived late, but not as late as previous years
 * add to agenda for later in the Congress
 * emailed to the annouce list
 * due to said lateness, add to the 7day voting period so people have time to look over it
 * if there are issues can hold a special general meeting on IRC to discuss

PROCEDURAL MOTION: Nomination deadline

 * MOTION: Procedural motion: all nominations must be in before the close of the meeting today.
 * Put by: Brendan Molloy
 * No objections, motion carried unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 10 (tserong, Aaron, unraveled_SamB, JoeMilesMob, jscinoz, CAPT-Irrelevant, MalcolmW, David, Rundll, George); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

Guest Speaker: Birgitta Jónsdóttir

 * Birgitta Jónsdóttir: The importance of Pirate Parties in 21st Century Lawmaking
 * Delayed until tomorrow due to a probable timezone confusion

CAP-1: Non-profit clause

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-1:_Non-profit_clause
 * Enacted as a temporary operational amendment by the National Council earlier this year, and so must now be voted on by the members.
 * Codifies existing practice, PPAU is de facto non-profit.
 * Key reasoning was to benefit from reduced banking fees, and this needs to remain in the Party Constitution to continue benefiting.
 * Saving of $40 per month, nearly $500 over a year.

Questions and comments

 * Would members with expenses still get reimbursed, or would this potentially cause people to be out-of-pocket?
 * Yes, everyone gets reimbursed for out of pocket expenses, and this explicitly says that continues.
 * Does this impact on Party's ability to sell merchandise for fundraising purposes?
 * No, it does not prevent the Party from generating income, only limits what can be paid for with that income.
 * Note that this also has already been enacted as an operational amdendment and has not caused any issues.


 * When something has already been added like this, should there be two votes, one to say that what was done was okay, and then another to actually accept the proposal going forward?
 * If it wasn't approved it would be rejected here at the Congress and any objections or motions to say "it was okay this once, but not again' etc could be raised as motions at the Congress.
 * Also if accepted now, but objected to later, then can be motioned to reject as a new amendment at the next congress.
 * If objecting to the amdendment, or want to put a new amendment to this motion, how does one do that considering there is a deadline of 28 days prior to Congress for constitutional amendments?
 * The 28 day period is so that motions put to the Congress aren't randomly edited by the person proposing it in the lead up to congress, but anyone can put an amendment to any of these motions from the floor at the Congress.
 * The 28 days gives you notice to prepare objections to raise form the floor on the day, while what you are objecting to (or attempting to amend) remains consistent.
 * Possible edge case secenario: What happens if someone runs a tshirt business and the Party procures shirts from them? Do they need to run as non-profit?
 * No. They'd not be acting as a member. Not reimbursement, the party would be purchasing from the business, as a standard business transaction. The business is not a member of the party and is separate. This does not prevent the party from purchasing goods and services from members where the transaction is genuine and legitimate.
 * Same situation if they ran an ISP and hosted our website, they wouldnt have to 'donate' and be reimbursed, we just purchase the service form them.

MOTION: Accept CAP-1

 * MOTION: Accept CAP-1 as worded.
 * Put by: Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer, on behalf of the National Council
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 9 (JoeMilesMob, Aaron, CAPT-Irrelevant, tserong, jscinoz, MalcolmW, unraveled_SamB, Rundll, George); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion Carried

CAP-2A: Extend time between National Congresses & CAP-2B: Fix National Congress dates and National Council terms

 * There are two competing motions:
 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-2A:_Extend_time_between_National_Congresses
 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-2B:_Fix_National_Congress_dates_and_National_Council_terms
 * To handle competing motions we must motion to dismiss one, as both cannot be put due to their contradiction.
 * CAP-2A was passed by NC and the Party Constitution requires that it is formally put to the Congress.
 * CAP-2B may be the prefered option and it was refined later by Brendan.
 * The intent of CAP-2A was to add up to a month between Congresses so the date can be set flexibly.
 * 13months was the smallest change possible to give enough leeway
 * CAP-2A was a temporary measure necessary for this Congress, and not necessarily intended to be permanent
 * CAP-2B solves the same problem in a different way.
 * CAP-2B is the better solution.
 * Fixes the date of the National Congress to during July.
 * Means that the National Congress is unlikely to shift, as CAP-2A could potentially see it shift by up to a month each year so that Congress 2015 would be held in August, Congress 2016 in September, etc.
 * If there is a spill and an emergency National Congress occurs, the new National Council term is fixed to end in July at a new Congress, rather than to go on for a full 12 months and further offset the Congress date.
 * NSW regulations require meetings be in July or therafter due to End of Financial Year.

Questions and comments

 * Is the seven day voting period cosidered to be part of the Congress itself?
 * Yes.
 * Should we then change wording to congress must begin in July rather than "be held in July"? Current wording could cause issues if the voting period spilled into August.
 * This needs to be put as a formal amendment.
 * Would it be better to have fixed terms and just say that Congress has to happen prior to the termination of that fixed term (ie fix the term to 1 August)?
 * That's essentially what it says, except that amendment proposal would create a week or two where there is the ambiguity of having no National Council
 * What if the term was fixed from1 August to 31 July and that the Congress should happen prior to the 1 August?
 * Put in a written amendment to propose this.

Chair calls 10 min break

 * CAP-2A & CAP2-B tabled for later discussion so that amendments can be written and proposed.

CAP-3: Amend Principles to include evidence-based policy, and deliberative and open government

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-3:_Amend_Principles_to_include_evidence-based_policy.2C_and_deliberative_and_open_government

Questions and comments

 * Can 'evidence-based' be considered broad enough to be interpreted to include the act of gathering evidence in regard to possible policies from a 'what if' standpoint
 * Yes this is the intention of the wording (ie the energy policy is not clear on whether private or public option is better, so let's do resaerch to discover the answer).

MOTION: Accept CAP-3

 * MOTION: Accept CAP-3 as worded.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 10 (Rundll, Aaron, jscinoz, JoeMilesMob, unraveled_SamB, David, CAPT-Irrelevant, tserong, MalcolmW, George); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

CAP-4: Minor Corrections

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-4:_Minor_Corrections

Questions and comments

 * Could you please read the full sentence where changed from "should" to "must" as this is more than a gramatical change?
 * http://pirateparty.org.au/constitution/#5.1(1)
 * "Policy development should occur with the maximum possible interaction with the party members - the party should engage in as a participatory process as is possible, and outcomes should be reached through consensus."
 * Now that we've changed to a must, all this is good, but just adding a must on a peice of string like that just makes it a longer peice of string.
 * The (Party) Constitution is all a long sad legalise piece of string … but this at least eliminates 'weasel words' (such as "feasible" instead of "possible" as well, more strict).
 * "Must" is always a better word than "should" for compelling an action.
 * Is it possible to have a clarification of the difference between 'possible' and 'feasible'
 * Examples given that possible refers to all things that could be done, feasible means all things that could reasonably be done within the context.
 * Regarding Article 6.3(5), does Brendan agree this creates an issue with regard to preselection?
 * http://pirateparty.org.au/constitution/#6.3(5)
 * Specifically relating to the possible short notice of elections etc
 * Being prefaced with "as far as is practicable" provides significant leeway
 * If not able to be done, it won't be done, but if it's able to be done then it must be done.
 * Is that ever really possible with not knowing when elections will always be?
 * It's probably not ever really possible — last time we needed to call special preselection meetings.
 * We retain the ideal amd aim to achieve it, but in practical terms, again, the 'as far as is practcable' is the escape clause
 * If we feel one is coming, we can organise in advance.

MOTION: Accept Cap-4

 * MOTION: Accept CAP-4 as worded.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 11 (sunnyk, tserong, Rundll, Aaron, unraveled_SamB, heifer, jscinoz, MalcolmW, George, David, JoeMilesMob); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

CAP-2A: Extend time between National Congresses & CAP-2B: Fix National Congress dates and National Council terms (returned)

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-2A:_Extend_time_between_National_Congresses
 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-2B:_Fix_National_Congress_dates_and_National_Council_terms
 * Suggested that the Congress floor votes on which of these competing amendments will pass the floor.

MOTION: Allow CAP-2B to lapse

 * MOTION: Accept that CAP-2B is the motion that will be put to members if the Congress chooses to accept it, and allow CAP-2A to lapse.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 8 (MalcolmW, Aaron, sunnyk, tserong, unraveled_SamB, heifer, Rundll, jscinoz); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

CAP-2B: Fix National Congress dates and National Council terms (continued)

 * Justin Clacherty moves an amendment to CAP-2B to alter the text to replace Article 9.1(1) with:
 * "The positions enumerated within Article 3.3 will be appointed by election through a vote of the Full Members at the National Congress to be held in July, for a term that shall begin August 1 of that year, and will all end July 31 of the following year."
 * Brendan's proposal was a floating fixed term, while Justin's is a constant fixed term.

Questions and comments

 * The change to Congress being fixed to begin in July may affect voting outcome as the results may not be decided until sometime in August
 * This would essentially include a backdating
 * Justin: begins 1 July, ends 31 August, but that could move to be 8 August and 7 August
 * Brendan: part of why it was floating to begin with is because then would it would be closer to the intent of this in practice because it always resulted in it ending in July and beginning as soon as the ending of Congress had occurred. Whereas understanding the intent of the fix term amendment here would be a formal changeover period
 * Justin: Yes, reasoning is to have a transition period in order to avoid difficulties moving between incoming and outgoing National Councils.
 * New intent is a formal changeover period/to have a transition period
 * Gives opportunity for the outgoing NC to enact changes passed at Congress before giving up their roles
 * Brendan: this could be possible either way, but we have a problem if we have an NC that is benevolently trying to enact things before an incoming NC that is opposed to those things takes up their roles.
 * If in practice the NC goes against the will of the Congress, the Dispute Resolution Committee provides recourse.
 * The congress trumps the NC so the NC should be enacting the stuff passed at the Congress regardless
 * The duty of the NC is to enact that which is decided upon at Congress
 * Note: Clarification that it's open to anyone to propose constitutional amendments, it's just that in practice it tends to be NC because the NC raises issues it experiences.
 * Perhaps as a compromise, there would be a benefit to having a formal handover time clarified in.
 * Decision to further table CAP-2B for further amendment
 * No objections

CAP-5: Clarify and remove unnecessary examples from Article 2(1)

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-5:_Clarify_and_remove_unnecessary_examples_from_Article_2.281.29
 * Parts of the issue are also stated in Article 2(5) and Article 2.1 with regard to state/territory branches being subordinate organisations.
 * The National party can overrule a polices of subordinate bodies
 * http://pirateparty.org.au/constitution/#2(5)
 * http://pirateparty.org.au/constitution/#2.1
 * This clarifies the intent of these articles and puts it all in one location.

Questions and comments

 * Is it acceptable under state legislation for a state branch to be a subordinate organisation of a federal party?
 * Unaware of any legislative prohibition. State branches are free to do what they want, so long as it isn't in contradiction to the federal party's constitution, policies, etc.
 * Most policy etc should be discussed at a federal level on an equal footing and trickle down. In regard to state issues they can do their own thing. The main purpose is to avoid conflict between federal and state party policies. Certain state issues shouldn't conflict anyway as they are state issues, but a state branch shouldnt contradict a core federal level policy (eg copyright)


 * Can the federal branch dissolve a state party?
 * While we are sure there may be cases where they'd like to, in legal terms they cannot actually do this.
 * A state will actually be an independently registered organisation under the various state laws with own bank account, structure etc etc.
 * This includes that the above is technically an honour bound rational agreement, in legal terms they cannot actually overrule, but this clarifies our intended behaviour
 * In reality the state branch is agreeing to let the federal party overrule it.
 * Constiution states that members must be members of both the state and federal parties, so members of both anyway. People cannot be members of JUST the state or federal branches, unless the party has really fragmented in which case we have many more serious problems.

MOTION: Accept CAP-5

 * MOTION: Accept CAP-5 as worded.
 * Put by: Brendan Molloy and Tim Serong
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 13 (SamKearns, Aaron, tserong, sunnyk, Rundll, MalcolmW, mandrke, unraveled_SamB, David, JoeMilesMob, hanrahan, jscinoz, heifer); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

CAP-6: Clarify Article 2(5) ["Structure & Composition"]

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-6:_Clarify_Article_2.285.29_.5B.22Structure_.26_Composition.22.5D
 * No issues with the amendment, attention directed to the content of the provision itself.

Questions and comments

 * Should there be something about automatic referral to the DRC if that happens because clearly there would actually be some kind of dispute?
 * The purpose of DRC is only if they don't agree with the decision, ie if conflict/complaint happens.
 * The state could pass something that uninentionally conflicts, the Federal party could then point it out, ask them to change it, the State branch may then agree to do so; or then if disagree refer the matter to the DRC.
 * Automatic referral forces a dispute where there may not be one, ie the state could happily accept the overruling
 * In that case, then... do we need something where there is a guidelines for when things would be suitable, should get referred to the DRC
 * Further reforming of the DRC is a bigger issue and is on agenda for future discussions, but too big a change to deal with here and now.

MOTION: Accept CAP-6

 * MOTION: Accept CAP-6 as worded.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 10 (JoeMilesMob, tserong, sunnyk, Aaron, Rundll, MalcolmW, unraveled_SamB, heifer, mandrke, David); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

CAP-7: Update membership requirements and powers in Article 4.1 ["Eligibility"]

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-7:_Update_membership_requirements_and_powers_in_Article_4.1_.5B.22Eligibility.22.5D
 * It is pointlessly burdensome to have to 'manually' approve anyone who joins that was previously a member of another party
 * This gives the National Council an "undo" mechanism rather than having to technicaly approve anyone.
 * Still allows the NC to combat any 'hostile takeover' from another party
 * If it takes two years to notice that a membership has lapsed due to non-payment of membership fees, the member would still have 30 days notification in which to pay.

Questions and comments

 * If a person is a member of another party and get accepted in this one, are there actually remedies for kicking them out?
 * Yes, the Consitution already states that your membership is void, so the NC has the power to terminate your membership


 * Could this affect who is counted as a member for purposes of being registered?
 * No, not in any way. This only affects the requirement for actually joining.
 * If someone joins but is discovered they are not enrolled they can be dropped to associate member if they can't or refuse to enrol
 * Associate members aren't counted for registration purposes
 * But if someone's "not a valid member" then how can they be counted?
 * They aren't


 * Can the NC's discretion allow including waiving fees for all members for declared periods of time? To allow for recruitment campaigns etc
 * Yes, in additon to the hardship stuff, this was the intent of this motion. While we've already done he campaigns as such, but this formalises our ability to do this and handle situations when arise


 * It says at the end of first dot point, after the 'membership period has expired' should that also include signing up for first time, do you then have 90 day period to pay upon signup
 * Yes
 * Beacause there seems to be ambiguity there
 * The intent is that your membership doesn't actually begin until you've actually paid, Whereas at the moment, you are a member once you join, regardless of payment.
 * So until youve paid your first period you arent a member. Whereas if you are a member, and it lapses, you have 90 days to pay, + the 30 days.
 * clarifying: If you are currently not a member, you aren't a member til you pay. Once you pay, you are a member.
 * For current members, once the membership period has lapsed you have 90 days, you are still a member for those 90 days. It is on that 90th day that it permanently laspes.
 * Being as it was previously 2 years, this will affect alot of people in the '2 year' period. There are a lot of people who haven't paid yet.
 * Yes, there are a lot of members who havent paid yet. Partly beacuse we haven't let them. We havent handles the payment process at all yet.
 * Not having a process to handle this is not a problem for the members, it is a problem for the National Council (ie Brendan needs to finish the join form software)
 * The two year people who haven't paid is not the issue, the issues is moving forward from this congress.
 * There could be an amendment for a phase in period of 6 months or something
 * I wouldn't know when my join time was and the period expires
 * Yes, that's why there's a protection in there that states, if the NC waits two years to tell you, then you still have another 30 days.
 * This will take effect in future once the join form is finished and sorted, so at this stage
 * the time takes effect from when the NC notices, ie even if you 90 days runs out you still get 30 days from notification from when we notice...
 * could ammend from 90 days from point of notice? But seems to be good enough without...

MOTION: Accept CAP-7

 * MOTION: Accept CAP-7 as worded.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 14 (sunnyk, Rundll, mandrke, MalcolmW, Aaron, JoeMilesMob, unraveled_SamB, hanrahan, George, heifer, David, tserong, SamKearns, VJmes); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

CAP-8: Clarify ambiguity of Article 6(6) ["Meeting Procedure and Requirements"]

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-8:_Clarify_ambiguity_of_Article_6.286.29_.5B.22Meeting_Procedure_and_Requirements.22.5D
 * http://pirateparty.org.au/constitution/#6(6)

Questions and comments

 * How is the meeting facilitator determined?
 * Determined by context of the meeting, eg committee chair, terms of reference, or NC etc etc


 * MOTION: Accept CAP-8 as worded.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 12 (sunnyk, Aaron, mandrke, David, VJmes, Rundll, JoeMilesMob, heifer, tserong, unraveled_SamB, MalcolmW, jscinoz); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

Procedural Motion

 * One hour for lunch.
 * No opposition, passed

PROCEDURAL MOTION:

 * To come back to CAP-1
 * no opposition

CAP-1: Non-profit clause (returned)

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-1:_Non-profit_clause
 * Amendment to CAP-1 due to notice from David Campbell that we need to constiutionally define our financial year (Associations act) to add
 * Pirate Party Australia's financial year shall begin on 1 July and end on 30 June the following year.
 * To be Inserted as article 1(3)

Questions and comments

 * Wouldn't it make more sense instead of hardwiring it to those dates, to instead match it to the legislation it's required for? (so if the (unlikely event) the legislation chages, etc. and to make it more clear why it is so)
 * Specifying the relevant act should not be necessary so that if there are any other acts we have missed, this covers it as well, rather than tying it specifically to a certain act
 * It just says we need to specify WHEN our financial year ends, in conjuction with our requirement to have the GM within 6 months of that date, but nothing in regard to what the dates should be
 * Note David Campbell is the Public Officer as defined in accordance to the NSW Legislation (hence why he is speaking on this)


 * MOTION: Amend CAP-1 as follows: Insert the following as Article 1(3): * Pirate Party Australia's financial year shall begin on 1 July and end on 30 June the following year.
 * Put by: Mozart and David Campbell
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 14 (mandrke, Aaron, JoeMilesMob, tserong, MalcolmW, Wendy_MsGator, David, unraveled_SamB, Rundll, SamKearns, VJmes, hanrahan, heifer, thesunnyk); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

CAP-9: Create Article for National Congress Online Voting

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-9:_Create_Article_for_National_Congress_Online_Voting
 * Note: was also edited after the 28 day period to remove some conditional markers (see diff)

Questions and comments

 * Should there be some words around required authentication for online voting to ensure Member identity?
 * if you wish to offer an amendment feel free
 * the intent was to take the oriinal wording and clean for grammatical reasons rather than expanding it
 * postponed for wording of an ammendment to the above effect

PROCEDURAL MOTION:

 * To postpone and come back to this later for an amendment
 * no opposition

CAP-10: Correct Ambiguity for Article 11(1) ["Dispute Resolution Committee"]

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-10:_Correct_Ambiguity_for_Article_11.281.29_.5B.22Dispute_Resolution_Committee.22.5D
 * http://pirateparty.org.au/constitution/#11(1)(a)
 * Also the current wording says "At the National Congress, members of the Party must elect by simple majority elect three (3) members who will form the Dispute Resolution Committee." which has "elect" twice.

Questions and comments

 * According to section 9.1 of the constitution; it says Officers are elected for 12months, is the DRC positions of 2 years a conflict with this clause
 * http://pirateparty.org.au/constitution/#9.1(1)
 * Wording is not ideal and should be clarified, but states: "and shall form the National Council.".
 * DRC are not part of the National Council so does not apply.
 * This is just a stop-gap measure until such time as the whole section can be properly fixed.

FLOOR MOTION:

 * Working group is formed to look at fixing the DRC article of the constitution:
 * MOTION: Form a Working Group for the purposes of clarifying the contents of Article 9.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 12 (hanrahan, mandrke, SimonJCoyle, JoeMilesMob, Aaron, unraveled_SamB, Rundll, heifer, David, MalcolmW, jscinoz, Wendy_MsGator); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 1 (thesunnyk)
 * Motion carries.


 * Able to now vote on CAP 10

Questions and comments

 * Still seems unclear in the wording: still says 3 to be elected at the congress
 * What happens if soeone drops out... should be something there to 'bring the number up to three'
 * That would be a major change, hence the working group (this current amendment a stop gap for now til that group can fix properly)
 * So while this is less than ideal, better to pass a stop gap measure now and spend the time with a working group to address the issue properly


 * MOTION: Accept CAP-10 as worded.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 12 (Aaron, SimonJCoyle, Rundll, JoeMilesMob, thesunnyk, mandrke, Wilson, MalcolmW, VJmes, heifer, hanrahan, unraveled_SamB); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

CAP-11: Move Article 3.1.1 ["Refusal, Suspension and Expulsion"] to become Article 4.5 ["Membership"]

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-11:_Move_Article_3.1.1_.5B.22Refusal.2C_Suspension_and_Expulsion.22.5D_to_become_Article_4.5_.5B.22Membership.22.5D
 * Ideas is to move this back since it is more related to membership rather than to the NC powers
 * last congress we moved it, but that was probably an erroneous action

Questions and comments

 * It doesnt say whatto do in regard to the numbering, could we leave the section in there, for numbering, and leave a reference in there with a line to refer people to the new locaton
 * Could be an annnotation, rather than keeping it thee to retain the current numbering (presentation layer change)
 * Not necessary to put a reference in there as it wouldnt be referred to from anywhere else or externally like legislation for instance, so it would just be retaining a title for now reason.


 * MOTION: Accept CAP-11 as worded.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 14 (tserong, JoeMilesMob, Aaron, hanrahan, VJmes, SimonJCoyle, Wendy_MsGator, thesunnyk, Rundll, unraveled_SamB, Wilson, heifer, mandrke, David); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

CAP-12: Standardise Election of Registered Officer

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-12:_Standardise_Election_of_Registered_Officer
 * Previously the resistered officer was elected in an unenforcable, bizarre, unworkable manner, with a limit to nominations
 * http://pirateparty.org.au/constitution/#3.3.7.1(3)
 * This method is kind of anti democratic, and makes NC feel bad because then they have to pick
 * Silly to have a different system


 * MOTION: Accept CAP-12 as worded.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 10 (tserong, JoeMilesMob, Aaron, Rundll, SimonJCoyle, thesunnyk, mandrke, David, unraveled_SamB, heifer); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

PROCEDURAL MOTION:

 * That next break be at 2:30 or whenever what is being discussed at 2:30 finishes.
 * no objections, carried.

CAP-13: Requirement for National Congresses to have online participation

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-13:_Requirement_for_National_Congresses_to_have_online_participation
 * Note that there is a poem for this, see link above.
 * Annotate the Constitution to have the poem appear on mouseover.

Questions and comments

 * The word "feasible" in that statement; move it to the start to make EVERYTHING as feasible
 * Use of 'and' as introducting ambiguity
 * See proposed Amendment:
 * Every feasible effort must be taken to ensure that there is some accessible and equitable mechanism available for remote participation at the National Congress.


 * MOTION: Amend the proposal text in CAP-13 to read: Every feasible effort must be taken to ensure that there is some accessible and equitable mechanism available for remote participation at the National Congress.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 14 (hanrahan, SamKearns, SimonJCoyle, mandrke, heifer, Wilson, tserong, unraveled_SamB, JoeMilesMob, Rundll, Aaron, David, Wendy_MsGator, thesunnyk); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0 aye
 * Motion carries.


 * MOTION: Accept CAP-13 as amended.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 13 (Wilson, Aaron, SimonJCoyle, JoeMilesMob, Rundll, hanrahan, tserong, thesunnyk, David, heifer, Wendy_MsGator, unraveled_SamB, SamKearns); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

CAP-14: Announcement criteria for National Congress

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-14:_Announcement_criteria_for_National_Congress
 * Was expected that this would be slightly controversial, including to the NC since the Agenda was for this one only finalised yesterday


 * Mozart: proposed amendment to insert "and financial report" after "agenda" since the finacial report is also quite important.


 * MOTION: Amend CAP-14: insert "and financial report" after "agenda".
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 12 (JoeMilesMob, SimonJCoyle, Wilson, Aaron, unraveled_SamB, Wendy_MsGator, mandrke, Rundll, thesunnyk, heifer, tserong, hanrahan); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.


 * Penalty for not doing this is really that it should count against the NC for relection, because they are expected to have had this done.


 * MOTION: Accept CAP-14 as amended.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Ayes: 12 (Rundll, Aaron, Wendy_MsGator, SimonJCoyle, unraveled_SamB, JoeMilesMob, mandrke, Wilson, hanrahan, tserong, heifer, thesunnyk); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

CAP-15: Insert a new part: Definitions

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-15:_Insert_a_new_part:_Definitions


 * Typo found:


 * MOTION: Amend CAP-15 where "for it carry" appears to read "for it to carry".
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 13 (Aaron, SimonJCoyle, thesunnyk, unraveled_SamB, JoeMilesMob, heifer, mandrke, Wilson, Rundll, tserong, Wendy_MsGator, VJmes, SamKearns); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 1 (hanrahan)
 * Motion carries.

Questions and comments

 * Some clarififcations as to the maths with the remainder handlking explained
 * Eg, if you had 101 people, half of that is 50.5, you drop the 0.5 to equal 50 then add one to make a majority needed of 51.
 * ensures no confusion over whether any existance, after division, of half a person or count should be added
 * Less ambigious than just rounding up to the full one, ie making it super explicit so that there are no arguments over what to do with remainders in future.


 * MOTION: Accept CAP-15 as amended.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 15 (mandrke, Wilson, Aaron, heifer, tserong, thesunnyk, hanrahan, SamKearns, Rundll, unraveled_SamB, SimonJCoyle, Wendy_MsGator, MalcolmW, JoeMilesMob, David); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

CAP-16: Clarify some references to majorities and quorum

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-16:_Clarify_some_references_to_majorities_and_quorum

Questions and comments

 * Should the para in 6(5) just be removed since we never tend to in IRC go through this member checking process. Should it just be a simple majority to remove any non-members if we choose to identify members etc
 * Note that the motion changes proposed are just to clarify the majorities outlined in them. The paragraph could use amending since it is a bit silly as we never put this one in practice, but again, just looking at the minimal change. Probably something to consider for next year.


 * The quorum for any motion to accept the minutes of a previous meeting is set at the number of Councillors who attended that meeting. - Does that mean that ALL Councillors who attended the previous meeting need to be present at the current meeting to accept the minutes of a previous meeting?
 * No. That is why it was added there, as currently that is the case. This changes it to be that if there are sufficient people present in the next one then they can accept it and move on.
 * If there is need to add correction in the future it can be added in the minutes of the next meeting. This alows us to pass and move on and state 'official' as far as people are concerned and NC takes responsibility for any errors.
 * With the bit about quorum, and majorities, the bit 2/3 or 5; how does that work out if you find yourself with a much reduced council for some reason?
 * You have to call an immediate National Congress.
 * If NC drops below 5 members, you cannot call a quorate meeting.
 * Can arise in certain weeks in situations of sickness etc, if enough are absent you cannot hold that meeting.
 * How to we call an emergency congress without enough NC to pass motion to call an emergency congress
 * Checking constitution: seems unresolved
 * Suggestion to pass a floor motion to require that we look into resolving this problem.


 * MOTION: Floor motion: a working group is to be created for the purposes of solving the problem of mass resignations of the National Council or otherwise being unable to become quorate for a set period of time, resulting in no ability to call a formal National Congress.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 12 (SimonJCoyle, hanrahan, Rundll, Aaron, thesunnyk, JoeMilesMob, tserong, unraveled_SamB, Wendy_MsGator, Wilson, heifer, MalcolmW); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.


 * MOTION: Accept CAP-16 as worded.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 14 (hanrahan, SimonJCoyle, Wendy_MsGator, unraveled_SamB, Aaron, Wilson, VJmes, heifer, tserong, Rundll, mandrke, thesunnyk, JoeMilesMob, David); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.


 * As passed in earlier motion, time for a break - with return at 2:50

CAP-2B: Fix National Congress dates and National Council terms (returned with further Amendment)

 * Amendment put by David Crafti and supported by Justin and Brendan
 * The members who are elected to positions on the National Council at the National Congress will take up those positions seven (7) days after the result is announced.
 * The outgoing members of the National Council must hand over and communicate as much relevant knowledge as is feasible.

Questions and comments

 * Is there a requirement to how soon results are announced after the vote
 * This could also be an item considered by the working group
 * We could solve this today by convention, at congress, by stating that the election must occur within a reasonable time from conclusion of congress?


 * It would be good to include a 'care taker' style paragraph for that period
 * Can put an amendment, but at the moment we do this by convention already
 * No amendment at this time, happy to proceed


 * MOTION: Insert the proposed amendment text to the last proposal text item of CAP-2B.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 13 (Wilson, thesunnyk, Aaron, unraveled_SamB, tserong, dotnetdave, VJmes, Rundll, SimonJCoyle, JoeMilesMob, Wendy_MsGator, MalcolmW, mandrke); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.


 * MOTION: Accept CAP-2B as amended.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 14 (JoeMilesMob, Wilson, Aaron, SimonJCoyle, mandrke, Rundll, MalcolmW, hanrahan, thesunnyk, Geoff, dotnetdave, tserong, VJmes, Wendy_MsGator); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

CAP-9: Create Article for National Congress Online Voting (returned with Amendment)

 * 'Voter Authentication' amendment:
 * Insert as paragraph (3) to the proposed text: "The online voting system must ensure that only Full Members can vote, and that each member can only vote once per poll."
 * Clarification: we do already do this.


 * MOTION: Amend CAP-9: Insert as paragraph (3) to the proposed text: "The online voting system must ensure that only Full Members can vote, and that each member can only vote once per poll."
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 15 (VJmes, SimonJCoyle, Wilson, Aaron, tserong, Wendy_MsGator, unraveled_SamB, Geoff, MalcolmW, Rundll, thesunnyk, hanrahan, mandrke, JoeMilesMob, David); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.


 * MOTION: Accept CAP-9 as amended.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 13 (hanrahan, dotnetdave, Wilson, Aaron, Rundll, unraveled_SamB, thesunnyk, VJmes, Wendy_MsGator, MalcolmW, mandrke, David, tserong); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

CAP-17: Make "Pre-Selection of Candidates for Election to Federal Parliament" a top level Article

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-17:_Make_.22Pre-Selection_of_Candidates_for_Election_to_Federal_Parliament.22_a_top_level_Article
 * http://pirateparty.org.au/constitution/#6.3

Questions and comments

 * This will automatically enumerate the following articles, correct?
 * Correct, numbers will adjust


 * MOTION: Accept CAP-17 as worded.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 14 (Joe_Miles, Wilson, thesunnyk, Wendy_MsGator, tserong, Aaron, Geoff, VJmes, dotnetdave, Rundll, unraveled_SamB, David, mandrke, SimonJCoyle); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

CAP-18: Clarify policy formulation

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-18:_Clarify_policy_formulation
 * http://pirateparty.org.au/constitution/#5.2(2)


 * MOTION: Accept CAP-18 as worded.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 16 (hanrahan, thesunnyk, VJmes, SimonJCoyle, mandrke, Rundll, Aaron, MalcolmW, Joe_Miles, Wendy_MsGator, unraveled_SamB, Geoff, David, SamKearns, dotnetdave, tserong); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

CAP-19: Consistent references to numbers

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-19:_Consistent_references_to_numbers
 * Simple change, just the numberiung style

Questions and comments

 * Does that include section numbering?
 * No, Section number styling was handled by a different amendment last year and does not apply here.
 * Should "Digit" be "Digits" Plural?
 * Yes. Shall correct the text of the motion (which can just be done since it is not wording of the constitution here changing)


 * MOTION: Accept CAP-19 as worded.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 17 (dotnetdave, hanrahan, SimonJCoyle, Geoff, JoeMilesMob, thesunnyk, VJmes, Rundll, Aaron, Wendy_MsGator, unraveled_SamB, heifer, jscinoz, SamKearns, mandrke, Wilson, David); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

CAP-20: National Congress Quorum clarification

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-20:_National_Congress_Quorum_clarification
 * This basically stops the NC from calling a secret congress and establishing everything themselves secretly
 * Based on (National Council of 9 + 2) x 2 = 20
 * Note that roughly 1/3 of members vote in the post congress 7 day voting period (and this has scaled at same proportion with growth)
 * Never really had more than 40 or 50 max attend congress.

Questions and comments

 * If there was a year where people werent interested, there is a risk that the party could become paralysed if for some reason not enough people did show up
 * Is this necessary as party is growing and we've always reached the goal. especially in light of the congress now being a more set date.
 * This was put as a stop gap measure just in case this was needed as a result of other things not being passed etc (eg fixedterms/dates), Brendan has no particular feelings on this motion either way
 * Up to Congress to decide if we move forward with this.


 * Comment: If we cannot get 20 members to a National Congress, we should probably disband.
 * Comment: Given that we have online representation a minimum of 20 should not be too difficult
 * Comment: Cannot actually disband the party without a postal vote (usually they just die)


 * How many people RSVP'ed for this congress?
 * 52 people (both physical and online)


 * I worry that this particular thing is quite gameable by any National Council were it to not want to have the Congress... Could this amendment result in a National Council gaming the system by making it awkward for attendees to show up thus making the Congress into a non-Congress if the National Council didn't want one.
 * This proposal stops the National Council from gaming it by making a secret meeting. Eg without this amendment a two person National Congress secretly organised by two NC members would still be quorate.
 * Another solution: working group about "busted shit in the contsitution" shall endavour to fix these issues as well, could be called the fail case working group
 * Another amendment already voted positively for, is to do everything we can to ensure online participation, but if something went wrong and the online couldnt show up; we are close tothat quorum limit right now...
 * Yes, this would be intentional, you'd have to pause proceedings, since it keeps more 'reasonable minds' present to consider issues
 * Nothing that a secret NC could pass can take effect until it is voted on by the membership anyway.
 * Maybe without quorum you would have a provisional National Congress where the first vote has to then approve what occured at the provisional congress
 * Note that the proposal is under posession of the congrss so cannot be withdrawn and must be voted upon
 * Need someone to formally speak for it or against it to have the debate
 * Andrew, putting a procedural motion to postpone until the next national congress and have the relevant working group look at this issue
 * Proposed motion text: Postpone CAP-20 until the next National Congress, and have it considered by the relevant working group


 * MOTION: Postpone CAP-20 until the next National Congress, and have it considered by the relevant working group.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Ayes: 16 (thesunnyk, JoeMilesMob, SimonJCoyle, Aaron, tserong, Rundll, VJmes, hanrahan, unraveled_SamB, David, Wilson, heifer, SamKearns, mandrke, MalcolmW, dotnetdave); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 2 (Geoff, Wendy_MsGator)
 * Motion carries.


 * CAP-20 postponed to next congress.

PROCEDURAL MOTION:

 * Motion for a 10mins break
 * No opposition

FM-1 Conditional withdrawal from Pirate Parties International

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Motions#FM-1:_Conditional_withdrawal_from_Pirate_Parties_International

Questions and comments

 * What's the current voting method in PPI?
 * It's not specified in the statutes but they usually opt for approval voting
 * In theory this sounds nice, but in practice what occurs is there's a requirement for the board to have X amount of members; X amount of members is not meeting their threshold; they revote and revote and revote, which tends to become random, whereas same result can be achieved with Schulze Condorcet that we use, but much quicker. (ie one round rather than 15 rounds)
 * What do we lose if we leave, vs, what do we gain if we stay
 * Not for lack of effort; we've been attempting to participate remotely for years with very minor improvements if they can be called that, but in practice we have very limited capacitity to make ourselves heard or otehrwise interact with other parties. It seems that in a lot of cases, PPI is unable to acti in interests of own members for various reason (eg board dysfunction, lack of clarity within the statutes, either saying they have no power, or refusing to limit their power
 * What we lose is possibly that we get some brand confusion. Ultimately the Pirate movement is not defined by PPI. The Swedish founding Pirate Party is not a full member, only recently joined as an observer within last two years.
 * We are not the only ones with trouble, concerns or considering leaving
 * Pirate Party UK voted least year on whether to stay or leave, and they opted to stay conditionally and this is what we are doing now with this motion.
 * These proposals here are what we see as bare minumum within the organisation for it to have future and if not then we gain nothing by staying as we see it
 * We have had informal communications with other english speaking partys, quite informally
 * We worked with Pirate Party Netherlands on our Liquid Democracy project(Polly)
 * Effort has been put into group meeting with the '5 eye patches' (ie NZ, UK, Canada and chunks of the USA).
 * Arising from this, for example, New Zealand growth may benefit from our experiences and even adopt some of our procedures as we have similar legislation.
 * These tasks was what PPU was intended to fulfil but has failed to do so.
 * The make it very difficult to take part online, including active hostility to people taking part online in the past
 * Cannot ultimately answer what we would gain by staying
 * Hence this proposal which amounts to what we would like to gain from staying
 * If the minute things can't be met to give some stability to the organisation and see it move forward, then we lose nothing by leaving
 * It's not leaving the movement, we continue to be Pirates, but we are not putting up with a failed bureaucracy


 * How likely is a withdrawl to occur?
 * I'm not a betting man, couldn't say.
 * But please be clear, this not a personal, this is a bureaucratic issue
 * It is big, majority of our members have voted to say this is a problem, it is an organisation saying that it's umbrella organisation is not working for them, so they should take action on this.


 * Would PPI be able to comply by 31 Jan 2015 ?
 * I say they can, otherwise we wouldnt have given them this timeframe
 * Mozart states that he would assume that if the first point is acheived, then the National Council would likely consider staying in, because that has been a major hurdle (online GA)
 * If there is progress on these thigs being done, then we would probably stay our hand in light of progress
 * This motion gives us flexibility to stay if progress is happening


 * I get that we wouldn't gain much by staying, but what would we lose by staying? Wouldn't like to pull out resulting in media saying 'pirates in dissaray'.
 * Only time it's even been on the radar in Australia was in regard to a blog post by Mozart, it's really not on the radar.
 * Wouldn't wan't it to come onto the radar as a result of this withdrawl etc.
 * There is a potential that it could make uslook bad; But in fact we will be continuing our international engagement even if that results in an alternative organisation.
 * We never really needed to formalise PPI, it was formed very quickly, opening several bank accounts which have now been closed forzen of considered to be fraudlulent
 * So currently no bank accounts accessible to PPI


 * I believe I remember reading PPI passed motions requiring membership fees from national parties such as PPAU, can you clarify?
 * They just voted to accept member fees, but in a way that was in breach of the statues... But noone has challenged it since noone trusts that the court of arbitration has the power to fix it.
 * Layers upon layers of disenfranchisement due to failings of the statutes.


 * Why are we even bothering to try to reform this organisation and what would we lose if we left it now?
 * What we get by staying is wasted energy and time as we continue to try and contribute in a positive way but are met with bureaucratic nonsense and hatred


 * It almost sounds like it is something cant realy be fixed; if there are statues that arent really being followed...
 * The culture of the organisation is toxic to the extent that may not be able to be repaired, and this is a last ditch effort to see if it is repaired to the extent that the board actually has responsiblities to its members, if the said issues go away.


 * Assuming that stuff just isn't going to happen, could an action be tied to that which is pull out of PPI and form a new one drawing on the 'eye patches' etc
 * Yes, but did not want to specify which actions a future National Council might take in this regard.
 * Can't see into the future, maybe the whole movement dies, but in the meantime we can send amessage to the rest of the movement to say 'but we can step back and throw away what fails and try again'
 * That's what makes us good. If it breaks and it can't be fixed, throw it away and go again. Waste all energy on fixing broken thing.


 * Could there be an action of creating a list of 'this is how to set up a functioning new system'
 * This is the point for what was listed... these are the bare minimum things todo.
 * Some of the statutes etc there are really good, but they have no way to be triggered, these are the trigger mechanisms that cause the rest to fall into place (at least in the meantime)


 * Can they fix thier own constitution
 * Yes, but can they fix their culture?
 * There are sections of the board that are just dismissive of online participation.
 * In last month and a half, Brendan was threatened by a board member; escalated quickly.
 * Brendan can be blunt etc, but Brendan had ensured other National Council eyes read emails prior to sending... Suggestions that are not personal, result in being attacked with a personal attack.
 * Despite being super careful to keep the suggestions devoid of reasoning for this, coupled with having things read by fellow members before sending etc, insisting can we discuss the issues.
 * Just arguing for an online GA has had some odd reactions
 * Private emails... possibly bordering on harassment? Rapidly cycles and escalates to a point of absurdity.
 * Frew was last delegate at PPI congress... becomes stressful and insane enough to drive him to drink
 * Worse than NUS student politics
 * Language barriers are an issue, especially in communicating complex concepts
 * There was a ballot for the election of Board members and they closed the ballot prior to our ballot being known and chose not to count it.
 * There are no rules with ballots etc, nothing specifies opening and closing times, nature of secret ballots. Proposal about clearing up these things.
 * If you cant get election of the board correct, how can you have trust in the board when you were disenfranchised from having your say


 * What do PPI even do?
 * It doesn't do; Nothing.
 * They have tried to get PPI on WIPO etc, but it got knocked back due to US pressure.
 * Note that we never got a say or option isofar as who the delegate to WTO would be or how chosen. Just someone on the board.
 * Said person then came into our IRC channel and was extremely rude and combatative while asking for english language advice on a poorly written submission, and became rude and offensive in response to constructive advice they had come to request.


 * Can see there are a lot of very strong ongoing feeligs in regard to this and initial questions have been answered by discussion. Seems that initially PPI was considered a positive but proving to be bogged down in bureaucratic issues, but PPAU would, in general, like to see an effort at international coordination ongoing
 * Obviously there's been attempts in the past to reconcile the issues of bureaucracy; Has there been a formal effort such as an international relations style working group to attempt to reconcile these issues and redirect the PPI  towards their original goal?
 * Yes, but rather than a separate working group, it had been handled by the National Council; Often in past when other parties have set up such a gropup it doesnt end well as they seem to have used it as a means to farm out people they dont like and have them deal with internationals instead. We preferred to represent ourselves as democratically elected representatives on the board of PPAU. We have been attempting for last few months to get a online GA arranged so that we could be on an equal footing and actually put these proposal forth.
 * Have been asking for this for serveral years to no avail and so have started organising outside PPI (eg '5 eye-patches) towards formally organising a moton undersigned by these 5 parties with these requirements.
 * It's not a threat, this is the endgame as we cant play by the rules anymore because you keep ignoring the rules.


 * So is it the intent of this motion to present as ultimatum to PPI.
 * So I would like to put an amendment to propose that a working group be formed to present it as an ultimatum but to attempt to work with PPI in order to meet the conditions as listed.
 * Yes, but we have already taken measures to do all that, and this is the result
 * A lot of the problems with PPI came about as there was a rush to form it (there was lots of general good will, feeling etc, despite reservations - can fix later) but then problems people got in pwoer and nothing has fixed and has gone bad
 * There is a 5 eyepatchs mailing list, workig with the other english speaking parties to put these motions internationally so it's not just coming from Australia, but from a collective group of international parties. Would also likely be backed by other European parties who also have issues with PPI, especially with disenfranchisement.
 * Miles likely happy to be involved in the working group especially as it could be productive with fresh eyes etc
 * This this has been done alot
 * Note, Mel was ooposed to this until about two weeks ago until their email exhange two weeks ago, in regard to the contact details
 * I would be more concerned with the media getting a hold of what thier internals etc are like and how non-transparent they are
 * to clarify, the NC requested contact details of party reps from the PPI board but was refused, suggested we use the mailing list... but list not closed and goes widely to randoms.
 * Eventually said, up to the board to decide: however, another message within 5 mins - not polite: passive agressive - we should accept lack of transpaentcy by board


 * Has leaving and rejoining as an observer/associate Party been considered? If so, thoughts?
 * Yes, but impossible under the statutes. Obersver Not a practical option


 * Practially speaking, what changes for the PPAU if we withdraw from the PPI?
 * already answered


 * Why are we even bothering to try to reform this organisation and what would we lose if we left it now?
 * already answered
 * Observation: I've not been able to shake the feeling PPI's "skills" "helped" PP's in the recent EU elections (ie, none at all)
 * fair assessment, however, it was PPEU and not PPI for most part there... they have their own issues unrelated to us


 * Note that we work great with all the other parties, but not PPI itself


 * MOTION: Form a working group specifically for the purpose of handling internatonal relations going forward.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Ayes: 16 (Geoff, tserong, dotnetdave, thesunnyk, VJmes, Aaron, JoeMilesMob, SimonJCoyle, heifer, mandrke, SamKearns, hanrahan, Wilson, Rundll, unraveled_SamB, David); Nays: 1 (Wendy_MsGator); Abstains: 0 *** Motion carries.


 * Should we have a motion just to leave regardless, and just work with that working group to get it to a point to rejoin.
 * we need to be constructive and not just withdraw without putting in effort - for the better of the wider movement
 * so far our efforts have been informal, this is now a more formal effort which is worth doing first.
 * this motion is not just 'you must do this' but that we will work with you and help to do this, but also gives us our own deadline to draw the line somewhere.


 * MOTION: Accept FM-1 as worded.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * Passed unanimously on the floor
 * Ayes: 17 (thesunnyk, hanrahan, SimonJCoyle, Rundll, David, tserong, VJmes, JoeMilesMob, SamKearns, heifer, Aaron, Geoff, Wilson, Wendy_MsGator, mandrke, dotnetdave, unraveled_SamB); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 1 (MalcolmW)
 * Motion carries.

=Day Two: Sunday, 20 July 2014=

Nominations

 * Candidate nomination biographies can be found here http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Nominations.

Policy Motions

 * Proposed Agenda change of PM-6 to first as it is potentially the most controversial


 * Note that name of motion will bename of policy

PM-6 Tax and Welfare

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Motions#PM.E2.80.936:_Tax_and_Welfare


 * Questions, Comments and extra rationale to be added to minutes when transcribing is complete


 * Tabled for later discussion, return to it after lunch -- no objections.
 * PM-6 to come back to it after lunch.


 * Amendments to tax policy:


 * MOTION: That PM-6: Tax and Welfare be returned to the policy development committee for further work and amendment until adequate modelling can be done to ascertain the impact to the budget bottom line, and that the policy meets the party's intent to reduce wealth inequity.
 * Put by: justin (ooasvc)
 * Floor: 1 aye, 3 abstain, 7 nay
 * Remote: Ayes: 7 (oaasvc, mandrke, Hasimir, hanrahan, David, George, SamKearns); Nays: 4 (thesunnyk, Rundll, jscinoz, Wendy_MsGator); Abstains: 4 (tserong, Expie, unraveled_SamB, JoeMilesMob)
 * Totals: 11 nays, 8 ayes, 7 abstains
 * Does not carry


 * MOTION: Within PM—6 ,Delete 'rental assistance' from the line: "The basic income will replace existing welfare programs including Newstart, Age Pension, Austudy, “Family Tax Benefits parts A and B, School Kids Bonus, Rental Assistance, Income Support Bonus, Low Income Super Contribution, the Disability Support Pension, and Carer Payments.”
 * Put by: Brendan
 * passed in theroom with two abstentions
 * Ayes: 7 (thesunnyk, jscinoz, Rundll, unraveled_SamB, hanrahan, Wendy_MsGator, George); Nays: 1 (Hasimir); Abstains: 3 (tserong, JoeMilesMob, oaasvc)
 * Motion carries.

Tserong ammendment:
 * That tax on an inherited primary residence be deferred until sale of the property.
 * accepted by MarkG

unraveled amendment:
 * That a tax free threshold is set on an inherited primary residence
 * makes it more difficult for new home buyer to get in makret and older ppl who had taken advantage of earlier prices lower) and negative gearing etc
 * mark: that was referencing capotal gains tax, whereas this is inheritance
 * accepted by MarkG


 * MOTION: Accept PM-6 as amended.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * passed unanimously on the floor
 * Ayes: 11 (thesunnyk, Expie, Wendy_MsGator, Rundll, tserong, Hasimir, unraveled_SamB, hanrahan, mandrke, David, jscinoz); Nays: 2 (oaasvc, George); Abstains: 1 (JoeMilesMob)
 * Motion carries.

PM-1 Constitutional reform

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Motions#PM-1:_Constitutional_reform


 * Questions, Comments and extra rationale to be added to minutes when transcribing is complete


 * motion to policy development committee to review in the next 12 months. (PDC accepts so carried)


 * MOTION: Adopt PM-1 as worded.
 * Put by: Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer, on behalf of the Policy Development Committee
 * passed on floor
 * Remote: Ayes: 13 (tserong, David, Hasimir, thesunnyk, hanrahan, unraveled_SamB, George, Expie, Rundll, mandrke, JoeMilesMob, jscinoz, SamKearns); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

Financial Report

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/File:Pirate_Party_Financial_Statement_2013-2014.pdf
 * big year
 * spent $50k in course of elections
 * electoral mats + fees
 * $10,810 on hand in cash now, $23xxxk at end oflast year
 * reformed banking in course of year, link with xero, more transparent and accountable
 * moving to formalise status ans non profit org
 * low cost campaigning key to future success
 * consent waiver xxx what? not needig autors report, waived... as usual
 * cost of doing auditors report is substantial, ie would use 3rd to half our cash

Questions
 * Xero: who has access
 * Trasury, will publish regualr updates, also grants ability to pubish roeorts
 * brendan poushed motion in NC to have monthy reports (easier now with new bank)
 * ie at NC meeting


 * MOTION: The Auditor's report as per Article 7.1(5) is waived by this Congress.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * passed uninamously on floor
 * Ayes: 10 (Expie, Wendy_MsGator, Hasimir, tserong, thesunnyk, unraveled_SamB, hanrahan, George, SamKearns, David); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 1 (Rundll)
 * Motion carries.


 * Note financal report to a 7day vote (due to lateness)

PM-2 Copyright amendments

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Motions#PM-2:_Copyright_amendments
 * Questions, Comments and extra rationale to be added to minutes when transcribing is complete


 * MOTION: Accept PM-2 as worded.
 * Put by: Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer, on behalf of the Policy Development Committee
 * passed uninamously on floor
 * Ayes: 15 (mandrke, jscinoz, tserong, Rundll, Expie, thesunnyk, JoeMilesMob, unraveled_SamB, hanrahan, George, CAPT-Irrelevant, Wendy_MsGator, Hasimir, oaasvc, David); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

PM-3 Education

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Motions#PM-3:_Education
 * Questions, Comments and extra rationale to be added to minutes when transcribing is complete


 * Motion:
 * Amend PM-3: Education to strike "Progressively withdraw funding to private schools over 10 years, with allowance for private schools to transfer or sell land and assets into  the public system." from the policy text.
 * MarkG accepted above line strike.


 * MOTION: Accept PM-3 as amended.
 * Put by: Mark Gibbons, on behalf of the Policy Development Committee
 * passed uninamously on floor
 * Ayes: 15 (jbevear, thesunnyk, David, jscinoz, unraveled_SamB, Rundll, Expie, hanrahan, oaasvc, George, SamKearns, Hasimir, tserong, mandrke, JoeMilesMob); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

PM-4 Energy, Environment and Climate Change & Animal Welfare

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Motions#PM-4:_Energy.2C_Environment_and_Climate_Change_.26_Animal_Welfare
 * Questions, Comments and extra rationale to be added to minutes when transcribing is complete


 * Amendment:
 * Under Accelerate investment in renewable energy


 * Currently: Where properties are rented, vouchers for solar hot water or energy efficiency upgrades will be provided to landlords.


 * Amend to: Where properties are rented, vouchers for solar hot water or energy efficiency upgrades will be provided to landlords for use only on the subject rental property.


 * Another amendment to the same section. Add the line:
 * The ACCC would have authority to ensure that prices are not increased for the purpose of receiving voucher money without providing equivalent products and services in good faith.
 * MOTION: Accept PM-4 as amended.
 * Put by: Mark Gibbons, on behalf of the Policy Development Committee
 * Ayes: 14 (unraveled_SamB, tserong, mandrke, oaasvc, thesunnyk, Rundll, jscinoz, David, Expie, Wendy_MsGator, jbevear, George, hanrahan, Hasimir); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

PM-5 Tort of Privacy

 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Motions#PM-5:_Tort_of_Privacy
 * Questions, Comments and extra rationale to be added to minutes when transcribing is complete


 * MOTION: Accept PM-5 as worded.
 * Put by: David Crafti, on behalf of the Policy Development Committee
 * Ayes: 15 (Rundll, Wendy_MsGator, tserong, jscinoz, hanrahan, David, jbevear, oaasvc, JoeMilesMob, mandrke, thesunnyk, Hasimir, unraveled_SamB, George, SamKearns); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.

Freedom of Speech: what ae acceptable limits

 * Questions, Comments and extra rationale to be added to minutes when transcribing is complete

The why of the Pirate Party

 * Questions, Comments and extra rationale to be added to minutes when transcribing is complete

Civil liberties in an online world

 * Questions, Comments and extra rationale to be added to minutes when transcribing is complete

Closing motions

 * MOTION: create a permanent committee to consider the outcomes of the process of the last National Congress, and make recommendations and suggestions for improvement.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * passed by floor
 * Ayes: 13 (CAPT-Irrelevant, Hasimir, David, Expie, Wendy_MsGator, Rundll, JoeMilesMob, hanrahan, jbevear, tserong, unraveled_SamB, SamKearns, thesunnyk); Nays: 0 ; Abstains: 0
 * Motion carries.
 * MOTION: Next National Congress to be hosted in Sydney.
 * Put by: Brendan
 * passed by floor
 * Ayes: 10 (jbevear, Rundll, thesunnyk, Expie, David, SamKearns, CAPT-Irrelevant, unraveled_SamB, Wendy_MsGator, mandrke); Nays: 1 (hanrahan); Abstains: 3 (tserong, Hasimir, JoeMilesMob)
 * Motion carries.

Closing remarks

 * Productive
 * Good with discussion topics, new for us
 * Thanks to Brisbane for hosting
 * Thanks for all for coming, and all those online for taking the time to attend