Policy and Preselection Meeting 2013 Minutes

=Day One=


 * Sydney, Saturday, 6 May, 2013

Agenda

 * 10:00pm (AEST) --- setup and arrival
 * Introduction/welcome
 * Agree upon agenda --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013#Saturday.2C_April_6.2C_2013
 * Rules of procedure --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Rules_of_procedure
 * Preselection nominees (in order of state received) --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Candidates
 * New South Wales
 * David William Campbell
 * Brendan Molloy
 * Questions and answers
 * Queensland
 * George Shannon
 * Liam Pomfret
 * Melanie Thomas
 * Questions and answers
 * Victoria
 * Joseph Miles
 * Geoffrey Hammett
 * Questions and answers
 * Tasmania
 * Thomas Randle
 * Questions and answers
 * Preferences
 * Any other business
 * End: 5:00pm

Introduction/welcome

 * Meeting opened by Brfendan Molloy
 * Candidates will be presented today for later voting

Agree upon agenda

 * No contentions on the agenda

Rules of procedure

 * Room and online agrees
 * Motion carried

NSW: David William Campbell

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Candidates#David_William_Campbell
 * Originally worked in IT, now president of Party.
 * Does not come from an affluent background.
 * Well versed in communicating with a wide range of persons.
 * Worked in various jobs prior to current employment in IT.
 * "Always be prepared --- this I know I can do."
 * Staunch supporter of gay rights.
 * Supports separation of church and state.
 * Transparency-focused, followed by intellectual property.

NSW: Brendan Molloy

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Candidates#Brendan_Molloy
 * Secretary of PPAU since 2010.
 * Complete registration.
 * Software developer.
 * PPAU only party to be a member of.
 * Focus for election is the really difficult things we can't really work around.
 * There is bipartisan support for data retention.
 * 95% of cases data will be used by the wrong people against the wrong people and for the wrong reasons.
 * Ran a petition against data retention.
 * Dual press release with Greens against data retention.
 * PPAU is already doing a lot of work outside the Senate.
 * Brendan is an administrator of righttoknow.org.au.
 * Freedom of information requests over TPP.
 * Very active participant in the freedom of information and pro-transparency.
 * Copyright reform work --- Australian Digital Alliance forums for copyright reform.
 * Australian Internet Governance Forum.
 * Gets out there and actively lobbies for PPAU's policies.
 * Been around since inception of Party.
 * Will be one of the best people to stand against the problems parliament is causing.
 * We're struggling to reform copyright because the United States extends copyright resume.

NSW: Questions and answers

 * None.

Qld: George Shannon

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Candidates#George_Shannon
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPnJhQ9OaJA&noredirect=1

Qld: Melanie Thomas

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Candidates#Melanie_Thomas
 * 

Qld: Liam Pomfret

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Candidates#Liam_Pomfret
 * I'm sure people here are not looking forward to listening to Brendan doing an impression of Rob Oakeshott, so I'll try to make this as brief as possible. My name is Liam Pomfret. I'm a PhD student at the UQ Business School at University of Queensland, studying consumer privacy online. I've been with the party since 2009, and for the past year I've served for about a year as the QLD State Co-ordinator of the party. I'm not here today to ask you to vote for me as your candidate. That's because I'm going to be overseas during the election this year, and I really don't think it's in the best interests of the party for someone to try and campaign from that position. We've got enough potential image problems as it is, not to mention just general awareness problems. So....I'm mainly here just to show that I'm not insane, so that I can be a backup in the event someone gets run over by a bus. The Pirate Party is the first and only political party I have been a member of. While I've had a longstanding interest in politics, no party  until the Pirates has been a good match to me ideologically. I strongly  believe in the Pirate Party's principles and ideals, and hope that the  Pirate Party can be a strong force for positive change for Australia. I'm distressed by the lack of understanding demonstrated by elected  politicians in Canberra about privacy, transparency, censorship and  intellectual rights issues, and am very much concerned about the degree  of influence being exercised by vested interests on the development of  legislation in these areas. The kinds of systems being proposed by  politicians on both sides of the house are nigh-on Orwellian, and pose a  clear and present danger to the well-being of this country and it's  citizens.

Qld: Questions and answers

 * Bryn Busai: "What about anti-corruption?"
 * George Shannon: "Anti-corruption isn't really much of a question. My view? Corruption needs to go away, that much is reasonably obvious. Exactly how we do that will need to dependant on what we define as corruption, and whether or not we want to move that line to rebalance power."
 * Liam Pomfret: "Not really sure what I can say in reply that question. I think that the party is against corruption is pretty much a given. It's why transparency is one of the core tennants of the Pirate Party, is it not? Transparency is the strongest weapon in the fight against corruption in government and in other public institutions."
 * Melanie Thomas: "Anti-corruption is definitely a subject area we should be addressing more, and I would be keen to draft policy in this area. For me in particular, this subject is very close to my heart as right now the anti-corruption organisation for Qld, the CMC, is under attack from the Newman government."
 * Brendan Molloy: It's a core tennet.
 * David Campbell: Transparency defeats corruption.

Vic: Joseph Miles

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Candidates#Joseph_Miles
 * 

Vic: Geoffrey Hammett

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Candidates#Geoffrey_Hammett
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZE3zrn8lvY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Vic: Questions and answers
[14:09] <+Faradn_> Brendan: QUESTION please read out the following "how will the candidate who lives in Apollo Bay approach campaigning?" [14:17] <+JoeMiles> Brendan: ANSWER I'm able to speak very well with media - both print and  radio/tv, and I'm able to take a lot of workload in this area. I'm able to present a regional face to the Pirates, to show we're not just a  bunch of inner-city hipsters. I have a few media contacts I can (and will) take advantage of.

Tas: Thomas Randle

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Candidates#Thomas_Randle
 * Firmly believes in founding principles of party
 * Worked in theater/production industry before moving to IT
 * Tasmanian Coord and Campaigns Officer
 * Need more volunteers for the Committee
 * Ran the first Tasmanian Cryptoparty
 * Organises regular meetings in Tasmania
 * Attempting to move towards forming

Tas: Questions and answers

 * Ian Cullinan: "Is there any point in running a single candidate."
 * Brendan: We need two to run our own grouping, but we can run one if we need to. Pressure on Tasmania to find a second candidate.
 * Thomas Randle: There have been a few people.

General questions to all candidates

 * Simon Frew: Where do candidates want to be ranked, and why?
 * David Campbell: Happy for members to decide, but would love to go first, not disappointed for second though.
 * Brendan Molloy: Similarly, but aiming for the top, happily concede to be second.
 * George Shannon: If you put your hand in the ring, Ideally you'd want to be first.
 * Liam Pomfret: Well, I think I've already kind of stated it in my speech, but in my case, I'm happy to be ranked last. I believe it's probably in the party's long term best interests for me to finish this PhD, and I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of running from outside the country unless it's strictly necessary.
 * Thomas Randle: Happy to compete for first.
 * Geoffrey Hammett: I will be first in Victoria.
 * Melanie Thomas: I'm aiming for front-running position as I'm putting 100% into this candidacy, however running second is absolutely fine: the will of the people (all of you) will decide.
 * Joseph Miles: I'm able to speak very well with media - both print and radio/tv, and I'm able to take a lot of workload in this area. I'm able to present a regional face to the Pirates, to show we're not just a bunch of inner-city hipsters. I have a few media contacts I can (and will) take advantage of.
 * Ian W: Is it really necessary to make the party rank those who wish to run?
 * Brendan: Yes, the preselection by-law makes this necessary. Two phase approval/preference vote.
 * Bryn Busai: What about preferences?
 * Simon Frew: On the agenda for after preselection.
 * Mark Street: How many candidates did the NC reject?
 * Brendan: Two. One because it was not correctly completed and for House of Representatives. The other was for reasons redacted, and the nominee

Preferences

 * Simon Frew: two options --- (1) NC determines this solely, (2) Party does it collectively.
 * Difficulty with the latter as we won't have full candidates until very close to the election.
 * It would be better though to do it collectively and transparently
 * Means that candidates/parties have to lobby us for preferences based on appealing to us.
 * Brendan Molloy: during a seven day period you have 48 hours to submit candidates and groupings/preferences.
 * Election committee will deal with that 48 hour issue.
 * National Council will not be handling it directly.
 * Large committee --- Campaigns, Press, Party Agent.
 * No ability to determine who the candidates will be prior to the election, though parties will be known beforehand.
 * Quiz parties to see how appropriate they are and give the answers to the members to allow them to rank parties.
 * It may be more beneficial to have preference deals with larger parties in order to get more votes than simply parties most closely aligned.
 * Sunny Kalsi: Preference deals --- should be up to voter to decide how to preference their candidates.
 * Brendan Molloy: above the line is for party benefit, below the line is voter's choice. We can have deals and make it transparent for the members to decide.
 * In favour of members being responsible for this decision.
 * Liam Pomfret: Ideologically, I feel that we'd always encourage our members to vote for who they want, and thus to vote below the line. But realistically, we know the majority of the voting population don't vote like that. And it's not like we can not assign preferences, is it? It's required for our ticket.
 * Brendan Molloy: yes, we do have to, and transparently would be best.
 * Thomas Randle: as participatory as possible. Will make us stand out in contrast to other parties who do not do it democratically. We can be different.
 * Brendan Molloy: Are there any issues with it being transparent and party-wide?
 * No objections.
 * Brendan Molloy: 48 hour period where we need to submit our preferences. Really only 24 hours because of the AEC bureaucracy.
 * Election committee subcomittee or working group could handle this --- IT person will take care of sorting out voting immediately when this is necessary.
 * Glen Takkenberg: 48 hours might be ambitious, perhaps do this a month before.
 * Brendan Molloy: Impossible to do if candidates change with last 48 hours.
 * David Campbell: If Election Committee can, they could use that 48 hours to prepare a revised list if new candidates were put forward and put it to NC for approval.
 * Brendan Molloy: Election Committee consists of minimum two NC, all candidates, Press and Campaigns Officers, Party Agent.
 * Brendan Molloy: If you can't trust your candidates to determine preferences, you have a bigger problem.
 * Simon Frew: Information on what our preferences are will be published on the wiki when they're decided. Those unhappy with party preferences can vote below the line.
 * Brendan will prepare a motion to the following effect:
 * No need for NC approval as half the NC will be in the committee and will have the same option to raise grievances.
 * Schulze condorcet method of preferential voting:
 * Instead of ordering candidates by preference, you rank them.
 * You can rank candidates equal.
 * Blank vote is defaulted to equal last.
 * It would be better to use alternative vote method to avoid possible ties.
 * Glen Takkenberg: How can a deal be kept to if it's a democratic process?
 * Preference deals might have to be solidified.
 * We might be better to just say to parties that we will have to wait because our process is democratic.
 * All members will be able to participate in the committees.
 * Andrew Downing: How do we make sure the vote on preferences is an informed vote? Voting on deals is also difficult because there is no way to know if the other Party will honour the agreement.
 * Brendan: we'll provide the necessary information hopefully.
 * Should the Party be able to actively seek preference deals?
 * Brendan, COMMENT: It's also worth mentioning that preference deals may vary in different states where some minor parties (like us) are not contesting in each state A small party just has to play the game from time to time, that's the way of things
 * Brendan: COMMENT: Unfortunately without whoring ourselves for preference deals, we stand very little chance obviously. As said earlier, it's a 'necessary evil'
 * I think we should consider proposing deals just as much as considering accepting them

Any other business

 * Thomas Randle (Campaigns Officer) would like to have a Campaigns meeting after the meeting for anyone interested.
 * Straight after this anyone who wants a say can come along.
 * Three projects on website content --- Interface, content, and members area.
 * "Meet the Pirates" Campaign --- infographic/videos to show we can produce that kind of material.
 * Preparing for data retention campaigns, candidate campaigns, and strategy.
 * Posters
 * Simon Frew: procedural issue --- if you're for or against a motion, please have a fully fledged argument to present tomorrow so debaters are well armed.
 * Pad for fors and against: http://piratenpad.de/p/ppau-policy-preselection-motions-arguments
 * Includes amendments

Day one adjourned
=Day Two=


 * Sydney, Sunday, 7 May, 2013

Agenda
End: 5pm
 * 10:00am (AEST) — setup and arrival
 * Introduction/welcome
 * Agree upon agenda
 * Rules of procedure reminder
 * Policy discussion --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Motions
 * 1:00 pm — Lunch/"Defining Non-Commercial" discussion group
 * 2:00 pm — Policy discussion
 * Any other business

Agree upon agenda

 * 1:00pm will be lunch, no discussion group
 * Lunch shorted to half an hour.

Rules of procedure

 * Brendan Molloy: MOTION to amend rules of procedure to limit speaking time to 5 minutes per speaker with a one minute warning.
 * Motion carried.
 * Meeting paused due to streaming issues.

Copyright policy

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/w/index.php?title=PDC:_Copyright_policy&oldid=3052
 * Brendan Molloy read it out.


 * Mark Gibbons:
 * Essentially our platform, but separated into (1) stance and (2) actions we want to take. The stance is in the platform, the actions in the policy.


 * Sunny Kalsi: How does this work with broadcasting such as TVNow?
 * Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer: TVNow was a discussion regarding format shifting essentially, and our stance would likely remain the same as it was when we did press releases on it.
 * Brendan Molloy: Probably something to consider at a later case.


 * Grant Mure: Would be good to include a way to help the artist regain their copyright
 * Andrew Downing: Copyright is to prevent other people monetising it, not allowing you to monetise it per se. After 15 years, everyone can monetise.


 * FOR: Mark Gibbons --- Copyright is not a retirement program for artists. This restores it to a reasonable balance and purpose. 15 years is based on academic research. Other provisions are a response to the use of laws originally introduced to serve the general public against the public. It's a policy that removes the scope for abuse against the public interest.


 * AMENDMENT: Mark Street --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Amendments#By:_Mark_Street
 * Read out by Brendan Molloy.
 * SECONDED: Andrew Downing
 * Glen Takkenberg: would it prevent people from using public information?
 * Andrew Downing: my concept of works produced by the government is that they're all ready paid for through taxes. Any further payment is taking a second bite of the cherry. Most accessible means that everyone can uitlise the information.
 * Sunny Kalsi: tax breaks for private research --- is this something we want to consider?
 * AMENDMENT: Brendan Molloy --- remove "including applications targeting mobile platforms"
 * Mark Street did not agree.
 * Motion to amend carried.


 * AMENDMENT: Rodney Serkowski --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Amendments#Rodney_Serkowski
 * Rodney Serkowski: We can see that copyright is about balance but can be used a sword to censor and control information. In response to Grant's comment about renewing copyright, the Statute of Anne (1709) allows a renewal [actually US Constitution + early US copyright laws]. I think it's a good idea and worth looking into.
 * SECONDED: Grant Mure.
 * Motion to amend carried.


 * MOTION: accept copyright policy --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/PDC:_Copyright_policy
 * Motion carried.

Patents policy

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/w/index.php?title=PDC:_Patent_policy&oldid=3051
 * Brendan Molloy read out.


 * Mark Gibbons: five to ten years is the ideal duration for patents to fulfil their purpose. The upper end (10 years) allows minimal disruption for retroactive change. This aims to restore patents to the purpose of encouraging innovation and invention rather than a way to abuse the system. Processes would remain patentable because it remains in XXX and they have a very functioning economy. Money spent on drugs by the public accounts for very little of the research into drugs. Allocating all money allows it to be put into areas that really need research rather than where the biggest income will come from. Monopolies are by nature anti-free market, whereas this brings it closer to a free market. This encourages competition, and incentives would be greater to research rather than profit. Public and private research should be encouraged to occur simultaneously.


 * Andrew Downing: Software patents was a contentious areas. Many believe they should be abolished because they are about basically raw concepts or mathematics, which are not inherently patentable. You can argue any invention ultimate comes down to maths. When patents are applied to software it has fallen foul of the general purpose of software. The same invention can be created with thousands of different variations on a theme. This leads to thousands of patents. You get very obvious things being patented and abstracted. Same idea expressed differently. There is however a fundamental reason behind why patents exist in the first place. First market entrant bears the high cost, subsequent entrants don't have that overhead. There is a lot of research required for software, and that research would not be done if there is no benefit. Short time frame and other constraints are specific to software patents due to constant changes. Includes a stricter verification for inventiveness, and will eliminate patenting of the same thing with a different method. Basing a patent on the outcome isn't appropriate --- it should be based on the effort rather than the result. Patents also force disclosure, ultimately for the public benefit.


 * Thomas Randle: QUESTION --- my understanding is that software patents fall under processes rather than inventions. This policy doesn't appear to approach patents generally. Are we going to move this towards reforming the patent system, or to attack individual sections.
 * Mark Gibbons: the work involved in rebuilding the patent system from the ground up hasn't been approached by anyone. We may move towards this after it's given substantial testing.
 * Thomas Randle: Different regulations seems strange.
 * David Campbell: It's to do with churn rate. Some industries innovate faster.
 * Andrew Downing: What you want to incent with your patent law depends on the industry or field, as well as churn.


 * PROCEDURAL MOTION: Brendan Molloy --- limit all speakers to three, five minutes each.


 * AMENDMENT: Mark Street ---
 * Motion carried.


 * MOTION: accept copyright policy ---
 * Motion carried.

Digital liberties policy

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/w/index.php?title=PDC:_Digital_liberties_policy&oldid=3054
 * Read by Brendan Molloy


 * QUESTION: Elaine Luahtl --- What is ITEF?
 * Internet
 * QUESTION: Glen Takkenberg --- How does this work for preferential treatment of certain services by some ISPs?
 * Brendan Molloy: personal decision on whether that would that be a violation of net neutrality?
 * Glen Takkenberg: What about prioritisation of VoIP and other time-sensitive protocols?
 * Ben McGinnes:
 * Brendan Molloy: The ISP would be selling a particular bundle to you for certain content being prioritised.
 * Andrew Downing: sources and destinations is about the website and client involved. Say an ISP prioritises one website over another. Generic global prioritisation would be generally okay.
 * Ben McGinnes: Ut doesn't answer it, but we did address the QoS issues during the policy development and there is nothing in the policy which prevents technical QoS issues.
 * COMMENT: Arik Batiz --- you would preclude people from being able to purchase specific bundles.
 * Brendan Molloy: would you like to write an amendment?


 * Postponed pending amendment.

Energy policy

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/w/index.php?title=PDC:_Energy_policy&oldid=3035
 * Read by Brendan Molloy


 * Mark Gibbons: Pirate Wheel outlines general Pirate Party expansion, but does not necessarily have to be followed. However, in Australia, the energy situation is diabolical. Coal subsidies and dependance increase, and mines in Australia are starting to become depleted. Current renewable energy policies in Australia are not serious --- any policies need to address the fundamental issues. Coal liquifaction is a disgusting energy source, and needs to be prevented because it will lead to greater subsidies and non-renewablity. We need to sort out domestic energy problems and have a renewable energy target of 100% if possible. Use a mix of state and market measures to build a renewable energy plan. Important industries have been hit very hard, and we could take an approach that drives necessary change by incorporating their support. If we don't have a strict policy that advocates for a clear path forward to tackle the massive issues. We can't throw money at coal and think it will work. It's better to hit the problem at once and hard. It's a much better investment to take the steps forward to remove entirely the dependence on coal.


 * QUESTION: Sunny Kalsi --- We know where our copyright plans come from, where does our energy policy come from?
 * Mark Gibbons: Beyond Zero Emissions has the best energy plan for Australia. This might seem overly prescriptive, however there needs to be some accountability. This policy has come from a respected body of researchers.


 * QUESTION: Grant Muir --- That was awesome. It does seem very prescriptive to limit it to solar and wind. Geothermal and tidal options seem to be a possible source.
 * Mark Gibbons: We have an escape clause that says we can use other technologies, but these don't seem to be at the right level. We need to make sure the industries are able to deliver, and solar and wind seem to be the best options. Large-scale solar is good because only the domestic economy will directly benefit. Tidal is a bit expensive, however there would be full ability to incoporate it if that changed.
 * Grant Muir: Significant mention of monetary aspects and selling off of infrastructure. Is there a reason for this?
 * Mark Gibbons: High prices are not reflective of private profiteering. In many cases the companies exist on subsidies. Whether we sell to private or not, it's still domestic. I don't think we would sell it all to a monopolistic corporation, and we could have this strictly regulated.
 * Brendan Molloy: Very detailed policy, and the PDC found it sufficient. Very well cited and scientifically supported.
 * David Campbell: Similar remarks to Brendan. Very enthusiastic about solar power.
 * Mark Gibbons: when you plan a large scale infrastructure project, you have to lay out the plan.


 * MOTION: accept energy policy ---
 * Motion carried.

Digital liberties policy (Ret'd)

 * AMENDMENT: Arik Batiz (Brendan Molloy sponsored) --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Amendments#Digital_liberties_policy (part 1)
 * Ben McGinnes seconded.
 * Arik Batiz: should not interfere with rights of customers to interact with ISP, or ISP to conduct businesses a certain way.
 * Motion carried.


 * AMENDMENT: Arik Batiz (Brendan Molloy sponsored) --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Amendments#Digital_liberties_policy (part 2 --- "Amendment to the censorship section...")
 * Glen Takkenberg seconded.
 * Sunny Kalsi/Arik Batiz: Who is making the decision to censor vs where it the censorship location ocurrs.
 * Ben McGinnes: more than a slight difference between ISP and local filtering.
 * FOR: Glen Takkenberg --- I don't see the technical distinction between subjecting yourself to censorship at an ISP level or at a local
 * AGAINST: Thomas Randle --- it provides the hardware owner with the ultimate control over the device, and it will eventually abuse.
 * Sunny Kalsi:
 * Brendan Molloy: it's about empowering the individual to control their own destiny in their own home, rather than give it to the ISP.
 * AGAINST: Ian Cullinan --- it's a difference between offering a blind service and
 * Amendment lapsed.


 * MOTION: accept digital liberties policy ---
 * Motion carried.

CSG policy

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/w/index.php?title=PDC:_CSG_working_group&oldid=2791
 * Read by Brendan Molloy.


 * Brendan Molloy: having a position now would be good in contrast to waiting three months to refine it. It's fairly evident that this has a negative impact on the land. There are a lot of better options. Fracking has been linked to water pollution and earthquakes.
 * Ian Cullinan: This seems to favour landowners in some places rather than looking at the great good.
 * Arik Batiz: Compared to coal, how is this as a viable energy source?
 * Brendan Molloy: This is a supplementary motion to the energy policy.
 * George Campbell: Academics are beginning to research and have found significant levels of toxic gasses.


 * AMENDMENT: Liam Pomfret --- to replace "farmers" with "landowners".
 * Motion withdrawn.


 * AMENDMENT: Ian Cullinan --- remove the line "Farmers will be granted a new right in perpetuity to refuse exploitation of coal seam gas deposits on land they own."
 * AMENDMENT LAPSED.


 * AMENDMENT: Thomas Randle --- to include both "farmers and landowners."
 * Motion withdrawn.


 * MOTION: accept digital liberties policy ---
 * Motion carried.

Tax policy

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/w/index.php?title=PDC:_Tax_policy&oldid=3029
 * Read by David Campbell


 * Mark Gibbons: It's unavoidable to have a tax policy because transparency isn't just about how government spends money, but also how they raise it. Our tax system is very catastrophic in comparison to the rest of the world. Hidden taxes hurt the poor and create surprising costs and force people to use tax agents. This is a form of lack of accountability that effects everyone's day-to-day life. Any platform that features transparency and accountability must include tax. Taxation reform is a nightmare because there is no global best practice. The Henry Review was a well-funded review that has a complete method of reforming taxation. The best way is through a cashflow tax. Taxation is in the Pirate Wheel: must be based on transparent view. Payroll tax is a tax on job creation. We can improve the system by reducing the amount of bureaucracy. We force people who live below the poverty line to pay taxes, and then reclaim them via Centrelink. Tax avoidance is a product of the other side: you can be remunerated in ways other than direct payment, such as company benefits. By taxing this, it makes it fair. Business taxes are reduced because it in turn reduces consumption taxes. Only large businesses benefit from innovation-encouraging tax benefits. Creating benefits for microbusiness would encourage greater competition. This gives us a way not to be pigeonholed into either left or right. We support private enterprise and fair taxation for lower income earners. Abolishing commercial activities of religious institutions also reduces


 * George Campbell: Was the supertax concept looked at, and for other industries than mining?
 * We didn't touch this because it's a nightmare, but it's something to be looked at.
 * Sunny Kalsi: What is payroll tax as opposed to income tax?
 * Mark Gibbons: A payment made by business for when they reach a certain number of employees.
 * Sunny Kalsi: Is there an evolution of smaller steps to meet this end?
 * Mark Gibbons: there are three separate sections that could be worked toward.
 * Mark Gibbons: there will be no impact on charities, only commercial religious interests.
 * Seumas M: the religious section seems to fail to distinguish Charities from Not For Profits
 * Emma Roberts: If everyone is paying less tax how do we pay for our welfare policy? Have we thought this through?
 * This will tax higher income earners more, and prevent tax avoidance. Cashflow tax would provide the necessary funds.
 * Grant Muir: Why does there need to be any reference to the religious side of things, and could they be bundled into culture?
 * Mark Gibbons: Cultural services is very narrowly defined by the ATO, so religion could not be lumped in.
 * Ian Cullinan: a lot of the bad taxes are state taxes, how could the federal side work with the state side?
 * Mark Gibbons: You say to the states "we offer you revenue from this tax, if you abolish these additional taxes."
 * David Kennedy: how would ' provision of charity, education, culture, community service, or health' be established and regulated?
 * Mark Gibbons: The same way it is now.


 * AMENDMENT: George Campbell --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Amendments#George_Campbell_-_3
 * Brendan Molloy: spells out the thing for those who will skim.
 * AMENDMENT ACCEPTED


 * Glen Takkenberg: Entire policy needs to be read with the context of "this is what is balanced out by this." It's already a given that this has to be read entirely.
 * Brendan Molloy: if it's spelled out to emotional voters.


 * MOTION: accept tax policy ---
 * Motion carried.

Welfare Policy

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/w/index.php?title=PDC:_Welfare_policy&oldid=3041
 * Mark Gibbons: we have a problem of having far too many options and lack of flexibility. It should be treated like a modular system. Basic income is considered a pirate policy. This can be brought together to mean that one single area can deal with the entire welfare system. Welfare can work to provide people with exactly what they need rather than being bureaucratic and making it too complex. Those on benefits would also be tax-free. Welfare should help the poor, and a means test would be determined later so as to to be too prescriptive. Requirement to have children schooled and vaccinated. Immunities effect everyone.


 * Grant Mure: rent assistance stuff. is there any mechanism for accounting for price variation?
 * Mark Gibbons: Linked to CPI, but should be average housing costs.
 * Grant Mure: Baby bonus?
 * Mark Gibbons: removed under this policy.
 * Grant Mure: personally think baby bonus is a good idea, but not current implementation. Perhaps we could consider implementing a Finish- like system of providing material, not financial, support to new parents?
 * Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer: probably a health issue than welfare.
 * Ian Cullinan: penalisation of couples. Centrelink at the moment spends a lot of time and effort hunting people they think are in relationships. Why should we consider penalising people for having relationships.
 * Mark Gibbons: it's monetary. Couples do have a better arrangement in terms of living.
 * George Campbell: They don't really have an advantage, considering two single people.
 * Sunny Kalsi: Is MediCare/nat disability considered welfare?
 * Mark Gibbons: no, they're health, not welfare.
 * George Campbell: what does tax-free mean?
 * Mark Gibbons: up till $25,000 under our tax policy.
 * Simon Frew: Housing policy/rent assistance. Some people already have the maximum rent assistance they can.
 * Mark Gibbons: we have to be careful that we don't take that as a way of introducing geographical benefit systems.
 * Brendan Molloy: perhaps we should focus on solving rent costs than rent assistance.
 * Elaine Luahtl: This wouldn't effect HECS?
 * Brendan Molloy: No.
 * David Campbell: Baby bonus helped my family in the early days.
 * Mark Gibbons: Substitute exists for that.
 * Arik Batiz: people are being given money and not taught how to budget.


 * AMENDMENT: George Campbell --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Amendments#George_Campbell_-_1
 * George Campbell: Goes against the idea of personal freedom and choice.
 * Mark Gibbons: Freedom of choice still exists, you just can't get government benefits.
 * Daniel Judge: What of the childs freedom to not be exposed to dangerous diseases at the hand of minsinformed parents?
 * Seconded by SeumasM.
 * FOR: George Campbell --- who defines minimum standards?
 * Mark Gibbons: defined by vaccinations and school attendance.
 * George Campbell: many people agree or disagree with vaccination.
 * Mark Gibbons: scientifically evidenced that vaccination.
 * George Campbell: both sides use the same arguments.
 * Brendan Molloy: thoroughly discredited scientists only agree with that.
 * AGAINST: Thomas Randle --- I think it's true that it's in best interests of society, but we do need to know where to draw the line regarding freedoms and choices.
 * Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer: Collective right and individual rights. Society generally has an interest to be healthy and safe. Individual rights need to be contemplated against the ideal of protecting general social interests.
 * AMENDMENT LAPSED


 * AMENDMENT: George Campbell --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Amendments#George_Campbell_-_2
 * Seconded by Bryn Busai
 * Mark Gibbons: this is not something that has to be defined right now.
 * Brendan Molloy: we'd probably have to compromise on means test anyway.
 * Ian Cullinan: we're throwing out all income and assets tests, rather than just throwing away one.
 * Mark Gibbons: this gives us more options, and by necessity we would remove the I&A tests.
 * AMENDMENT LAPSED.


 * AMENDMENT: Ian Cullinan --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Amendments#Ian
 * Amendment agreed to.


 * MOTION: Accept drug policy.
 * Motion carried.

Drug policy

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/w/index.php?title=PDC:_Drug_policy&oldid=3069
 * Read by Brendan Molloy.


 * Mark Gibbons: The war on drugs is the most expensive and most costly war on civil liberties in the developed world. It's not an option for us to say nothing about it. We oppose criminalising innate human behaviour. Criminalisation doesn't work in copyright, and it doesn't work here. What drug cartels do with the drug money is worse than what the drugs themselves do. I think that's evident as well in the western world. The state can't determine what people put in there bodies practically. Harm minimisation: under criminal justice assistance, people can't get help unless they accept they are criminals. We're creating criminals out of non-crime. To move things into public health sphere and away from law enforcement is a better way of dealing with it. If you want move funds away from drug cartels you have to go further than decriminalisation. You have to look at legalisation. Civil liberties protection requires some acceptance that things have to be changed. We've taken a multi-part route of partial legalisation. Prohibition doesn't work. Drug uptake does not increase after prohibition and does not decrease during prohibition. The only drugs we currently allow are tobacco and alcohol, which are far more dangerous than many others. Health warnings can be introduced. We're creating a more balanced, controlled, liberty-based policy. This is moving the discussion into the hands of experts and out of those of mainstream media.


 * Liam Pomfret: are plainpacks covered under the no advertising point?
 * Mark Gibbons: Yes.


 * Grant Muir: could we remove entirely the police dogs?
 * Mark Gibbons: Yes, but already covered by policy.


 * Sunny Kalsi: what about driving under influence of other drugs?
 * David Campbell: there are already things in place.


 * AMENDMENT: Arik Batiz --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Amendments#Arik.27s_amendments (Amendment 1)
 * Sponsored by Brendan Molloy
 * Seconded by several
 * FOR: Arik Batiz: mentioning specific drugs gives it a kneejerk feeling. If a group of professionals make this decision it would give it greater credence.
 * AGAINST: Mark Gibbons these are already established by research. A separate committee would just add more bureaucracy.
 * Mark Gibbons: The committee is empowered based on emerging research.
 * FOR: George Campbell --- will the committee be made up of professionals?
 * AGAINST: Ian Cullinan --- new evidence just means we'll have to reconsider the policy, but we can't not take moves just because the evidence might change.
 * Mark Gibbons: the policy allows this.
 * Brendan Molloy: we aren't ignoring the evidence, but there's only three references.
 * Simon Frew: Marijuana is viewed by many as a fairly harmless drug, it's more clear cut than the other. We should get a lot of positive attention from it, but LSD and shrooms might not.
 * Brendan Molloy: it's not a major consideration, but we do need to take into account public perception. Mainstream media will spin this poorly perhaps. Could split the amendment in half, to prevent LSD and shrooms from increasing public perception.
 * AMENDMENT: Brendan Molloy --- split amendment.
 * Amendment agreed to.
 * AMENDMENT: Remove the line referring to marijuana.
 * Motion defeated.
 * AMENDMENT: Remove the line referring to LSD and shrooms
 * Motion carried.
 * Dominique (guest, bar attendee) --- not just a barman. Works with NSW ambulance service. Received calls all the time for LSD and shrooms, but never for marijuana.


 * AMENDMENT: Arik Batiz --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Amendments#Arik.27s_amendments (Amendment 2)
 * Withdrawn


 * AMENDMENT: Arik Batiz --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Amendments#Arik.27s_amendments (Amendment 3)
 * Withdrawn


 * AMENDMENT: David Kennedy --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Amendments#David_Kennedy
 * Withdrawn


 * AMENDMENT: SeumasM --- Amend "Users who work in professions with "life and death" obligations to others may face suspension of their right to practice under civil law" to "Users who work in professions with professional duty of care to others may face suspension of their right to practice under civil law."


 * MOTION: accept drug policy.
 * Motion carried.

Marriage policy

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/w/index.php?title=PDC:_Marriage_Act_policy&oldid=3043
 * Read by Brendan Molloy.


 * Melanie Thomas:
 * Andrew Downing: 18 years seems at odds with marriages under 18 being able to ocurr with parental consent. 16 year olds would not be able to get welfare either.
 * Brendan Molloy: Brings everything in line with age of majority and welfare policy says to make it relationship-neutral.
 * Brendan Molloy: we can thank the liberal party for this, as it was their rejection of the idea.
 * FOR --- David Kennedy: According to many surveys over recent years, more than half the population support gay marriage. As a policy being upheld by our party in the Senate, the issue of wildly varying opinions is not as much of a problem as it would be running in some electorates for the lower house.
 * FOR --- SeumasM: A policy of abolishing state marriage in favour of civil unions is a politically progressive solution that would effectively 'solve' the current marriage debate, but in a radical way. It provides equal protection under the Law for various kinds of unions, without entrenching discrimination, while still respecting liberty of belief.
 * AGAINST --- David Kennedy: Support for this varies wildly between different geographical regions & across various cultural and socio-economic demographics, with the residents in some MPs electorates (such as Hinkler & Deakin) having 90%+ support for retaining the definition of marriage, with ~15% of the overall population holding marriage so deeply for cultural or faith reasons that it is for them a vote-changer. (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2870676.html) . It is fairly clear that there is still a long way to go in terms of public opinion, making this still an extremely controversial issue. Estimates indicate that legal options for same-sex marriage would only be taken up by less than 0.5% of the population (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd158). Pushing this as a strong party policy risks both alienating potential voters, and detracting focus away from our parties' core ideals (many of which are also controversial). I think it wise to 'choose our fights' wisely, rather than trying to tackle a multitude of sensitive issues all at once.
 * SeumasM: The proposed policy is lose-lose for both sides of the marriage debate. Marriage equality advocates do not want Civil Unions nor the abolition of state instituted marriage (http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/get-informed/fact-sheets/), while conservatives on this issue are unlikely to find abolition of state-sanctioned marriage a suitable 'solution'. This makes the proposed policy politically unviable in a democracy - the number of voters who want to abolish marriage to gain equality is going to be quite small.
 * David Kennedy: Regardless of the legal climate, most mainstream churches have already decided that they will neither endorse by conducting, nor recognise the validity of, same-sex Marriages. For the small portion of people who would be adhered to us by such policy, there would be exponentially more who would be repelled. From a pure marketability perspective, it's probably a controversy we could do without until we're more solidly grounded within the Australian political landscape.
 * David Campbell: why are we going specifically after couples, what about polyamorous relationships?
 * Brendan Molloy: too complicated to deal with right now.


 * AMENDMENT: David Kennedy --- Substitute "Replace the Marriage Act 1961 with a Civil Unions Act" with "Supplement the Marriage Act 1961 with a Civil Unions Act" and "The institution of marriage will be removed from the purview of state authority and instead overseen by secular and religious organisations who will have freedom to offer ceremonies in adherence with their own beliefs" with "Registered Celebrants, and any others who are presently recognised to conduct marriages under the Marriage Act 1961, will be able to conduct legally recognised unions under either the Marriage Act 1961 or the Civil Unions Act; in either secular contexts, or within religious organisations who will have the freedom to offer ceremonies in adherence with their own beliefs."
 * Consider invalid, but pushed anyway.
 * Motion lapses.

Bill of rights policy

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/w/index.php?title=PDC:_Bill_of_Rights_Working_Group&oldid=3112
 * Read by Brendan Molloy


 * Andrew Downing: should be considered differently as it is pro-referendum, not legislation. This is very clearly aimed towards individuals and not "unnatural persons" like corporations. Government not passing any policies intended to limit participation in politics is very clearly aimed at Pirate Party Australia and doubling in electoral costs. None of the rights should be considered absolutely --- rights are always a balancing act. No right overrides all other rights, the object should be the greater good. Not attempting to be a constitutional amendment prescription. This is a stake in the ground for what we're about. We should be thinking about it within this context.


 * George Campbell: Under fair legal process, there's no prison for breach of contract.
 * Andrew Downing: there's a practice in the US where anyone guilty of a felony is not able to vote. This is used to prevent people voting by introducing criminal penalties for a range of offences. We're preventing that overreach.


 * Ian Cullinan: Clarification of right to copy and access laws to include standards made referenced to in legislation?
 * Brendan Molloy: needs to be legislative, not Bill of Rights.


 * AMENDMENT: Ian Cullinan --- to specify "adult citizens" in the policy text.
 * Amendment agreed to.


 * AMENDMENT: SeamusM --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Amendments#Euthanasia
 * Amendment lapsed.


 * AMENDMENT: Robyn Lawrie-Martyn --- https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Amendments#Subcultures
 * Amendment agreed to.


 * MOTION: accept bill of rights policy
 * Motion carried.

Improving electoral participation

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policy_and_Preselection_Meeting_2013/Motions#Improving_electoral_participation
 * Read by Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer
 * MOTION: accept position statement
 * Motion carried.

Floor motion

 * Presented by Brendan Molloy
 *  http://piratenpad.de/p/ppau-preferences-2013-motion
 * Motion carried.

Any other business

 * None.