Pirate Congress 2023/Minutes/Saturday

= Day one: Saturday =

Agenda

 * 09:00 — Set up
 * 10:00 — President opens the Annual National Congress
 * 10:10 — Housekeeping
 * 10:15 — Adoption of Standing Orders
 * 10:20 — Outgoing National Council reports
 * 10:50 — 10 minute break
 * 11:00 — Treasurer's report
 * 11:15 — Motions (in order)
 * Constitutional amendment motions
 * Formal motions
 * Policy motions
 * 12:30 — Lunch
 * 13:30 – Set up resumes
 * 14:00 — Motions (continued)
 * Floor motions permitted once other business completed
 * 15:00 — Guest Speaker (Sven Clements from Pirate Party Luxembourg)
 * 16:00 — Close of day one

Opening [10:02]

 * President Miles Whiticker (the CHAIR) opens the Congress.
 * Acknowledgement of Country.
 * Housekeeping
 * Agenda, start times, finish times

Standing Orders [10:11]

 * The CHAIR reviewed the standing orders.

President 10:15

 * Our first full year within Fusion.
 * Some changes for both of us.
 * My focus has been on campaigning - indeed I think I've spent more time on Fusion things than Pirate specific things.
 * This is consistent with our aim (being a part of Fusion to continue electoral campaigning)
 * It's been great to see so many Pirates stepping up to work on and influence things within Fusion.
 * Fusion contested Victorian state election and Aston by-election this last year
 * I've worked on a member drive, and done a lot of work on volunteer organisation & strategy
 * Really excited by the progress that we've made campaigning, esp. Owen Miller's result in Aston. Possibly the highest result any of us have ever gotten across the history of Fusion.
 * QUESTION from John August: why do you think Owen's campaign was so successful?
 * Miles: I've written a 10,000 word reflection on the campaign. It's a truism that campaigns are won by the work leading up to the final day. We had a great phonebanking campaign to activate a relatively large volunteers which fed into a strong pre-poll effort.
 * From a Pirate-specific perspective, with so much energy going into Fusion it's been a bit quieter here.
 * Exciting work with an identity survey, some initial tech issues (we didn't want to use Google Forms...)


 * Some key points from the survey:
 * 47 responses, good sample
 * what labels do you identify with?
 * Progressive and Socialist, in tech-, market- and eco- flavours
 * Lots of identification with libertarian and liberal identities too
 * Lots of cumulative and overlapping identities
 * There's a theory (due to Chris Poole) that identities are quite "prismatic" and contextual
 * In PPAU we'll have great internal fights, but happily agree externally
 * Policy concerns around multi-national corporations, foreign policy (China, A/Pac), government transparency, surveillance, public healthcare & education
 * Attempted a multinomial regression but that might be a bit too out there :)


 * In conclusion, looking to continue the relationship with and support of Fusion

Secretary's Report [10:32]

 * "Short report from me today"
 * tl;dr: the world is run by those who turn up - so turn up!

Treasurer's report [10:35]

 * "A generic year" - keeping things ticking over
 * Finances have ticked up a little this year
 * Could not run a serious election campaign with current funds though
 * There's also a lot of fraud out there - we got stung by someone claiming to be NordVPN over direct debits; that money was recovered.


 * In the past, Fusion has largely figured out who can stand where without too much contention
 * QUESTION from Wade Johnson: why would there be contention?
 * John: in the case of a by-election (or the lead Senate candidates) we have a higher chance of two branches both wanting to take it on, in a general election we have resources spread more widely. Usually the branch or candidate with the greatest capacity have taken the lead.
 * COMMENT from Owen FM: there were several people up for selection in Aston.
 * Miles: yes, several options. Tight timeline, a few meetings held, one dropped out, and then the remaining two agreed on Owen.


 * QUESTION from Adam W: can you speak about how Fusion and Pirate funding intersect?
 * As a candidate, I got some money via Fusion fundraising, some money from the Pirate Party, some reimbursement from Fusion later, and some money out of my own pocket.
 * Miles: when Fusion started up each branch put in $500 startup money, and for tax reasons most donations should go through Fusion. Most of the remaining donations to the Pirates are going towards sustaining our IT operations


 * COMMENT from Alex: I invite all members to review the financial report

MOTION to accept the reports [10:49]

 * The CHAIR moved to accept the outgoing President's, Secretary's and Treasurer's reports.
 * Ayes (Andrew Downing, Miles Whiticker, Alex Jago, David Kennedy, John August, Simon Gnieslaw, Adam Woodings, milspec) + star_tube & zach__
 * CARRIED unanimously at 10:51 AEST.

CAP-1 [11:03]

 * Relatively uncontentious: just reducing the quorum for National Council meetings
 * In keeping with the Three Pirate Rule


 * MOTION: approve CAP-1
 * Put by: Miles Whiticker
 * Carried unanimously (TODO: check logs for names) and will proceed to online voting

CAP-2 [11:11]

 * Simon Gnieslaw speaks to his motion
 * "Realistically, there are other associated parties out there which aren't competitors for AEC registration" - examples of Non-Human Party and Public Interest Before Corporate Interest
 * Hoping to reduce barriers to entry


 * COMMENT from Alex the main point of Full Membership (currently) is that by being a Full Member you're pledging your support to us for AEC purposes
 * COMMENT from Star_Tube re principles and objects being undefined; Simon points to Part I of the constitution.


 * Motion: Accept CAP-2
 * Put by: Miles Whiticker
 * Ayes 7
 * Nays 2
 * CARRIED (11:21) and will proceed to online voting

CAP-3 [11:21]

 * Simon speaks to his motion
 * We have membership categories for permanent residents and international people, but technically all members are required per 4.1(e) to be on the Australian electoral roll. This changes it to being a function of Full membership.

MOTION: accept CAP-3

 * Put by: Miles Whiticker
 * Ayes 11
 * Carried unanimously 11:25
 * Proceeds to online member vote

FM-1 [11:26]

 * Motion to rejoin Pirate Parties International
 * Jay Stephens from the Foreign and International Relations Committee speaks to the motion
 * Thanks to all those who've been part of FIRC over the last couple of years
 * (stream hiccup)
 * Since we left PPI in 2014, they've addressed almost all of our issues.
 * Therefore, why not rejoin?
 * Fees are likely to be minimal
 * Enthusiastic welcome - everyone would like to have us back officially
 * Everyone wants worldwide Pirates
 * Simple principle that it's better to be inside than out.


 * Miles: to echo Jay, we went through an engagement process, going to their events.
 * They have a General Assembly next weekend, which we are welcome to observe


 * Jay: note that the motion is to rejoin at the GA in Northern Hemisphere Winter - they have one coming up next week!


 * Comment from David Kennedy: Note that joining PPI doesn't impose any real obligations on us here in Australia. The common element is pirate politics / direct democracy. The way policies play out in various countries obviously vary.
 * Miles: yes, there's a broad variety of stances among parties worldwide


 * Question from Star_Tube: Wasn't a significant reason for leaving disparate treatment between in person and online attendees of their meetings?
 * Jay: yes, and from what we've observed over the last two years, that's been fully fixed. By almost unlucky coincidence they switched to mostly-online GAs shortly after we left anyway.
 * Miles: it was pretty mediocre at first, primarily in-person with a lot of background noise, in-person voting with coloured flags, etc (which is how we did it too). They have now improved significantly.

MOTION: accept FM-1 [11:37]

 * That Pirate Party Australia apply to join Pirate Parties International (PPI) at PPI's upcoming General Assembly in northern-hemisphere winter.


 * Ayes: 11
 * Alex, Simon, Miles, Adam, David, Jay, Andrew, John, James, JedB, Bryn
 * CARRIED at 11:41 and proceeds to full online member vote

PM-2 [11:43]

 * Marriage policy update
 * Simon speaks to his motion
 * It's been bugging me for a while.
 * Post plebiscite we updated our policy to be polyamory friendly
 * but the concept of "everyone gets a civil union" can come across the wrong way and can give the wrong impression about us - that we're trying to eliminate marriage because of the plebiscite.
 * The SSM campaigners were clear that they want "marriage", not (just) a "civil union".
 * I'd also be happy to repeal the policy altogether, which has also been suggested.

Marriage Act itself has been updated, but at the same time from a libertarian standpoint, relationships sbouldn't be regulated by the state. with the description of the fault. The "civil Union" representation of it was not a renaming, but a                        separation of concerns, so that the government basically got out of the way in regards anything except matters of law and benefits. *marriage* is just a pinky promise with no meaning left. quite old in and of itself and has operated parallel but seperate to Marriage. the individual and the state, I see the issue as naturally emerging from that concern.
 * Comment from JohnA: I'd support repealing it
 * Comment from Alex: I support the update - expanding to include poly support is good
 * Comment from JedB: shifting the focus towards defacto relationships will likely make "divorces" aka breakups an even bigger mess than they already tend to be
 * Simon: I see this as a streamlining, regardless of whether they have a piece of paper
 * Comment from James: This policy seems to have little to do with core pirate principles. While it may be a policy that many people support there are some who agree with core pirate principles but not with this seperate policy.
 * Comment from David: It does make sense to change things now that the
 * Comment from Andrew: I don't mind removing it entirely, but I don't agree
 * Comment from Owen: I think the state always needs to be involved, otherwise a
 * Comment from James: In relation to this, the idea of Civil Union is
 * Comment from John: Pirates are very concerned about the relationship between
 * Andrew and Zach make similar comments about a civil union being about government, marriage being about community.


 * Comment from JedB: aside from consensualness and children guardianship, the state has interests in marriage regarding property ownership, taxes, and ability to provide legal testimony


 * Some discussion around mechanics of putting a "repeal the section" amendment.


 * Simon: "the ability to get married, not just civil unioned, was hard fought for and we should respect that".

Comment from JedB: updating laws to look at the actual level of commitment between partners sounds like it could have significant privacy implications, much like how the current questions centrelink asks those to determine defacto relationships can get potentially invasive


 * MINUTES Note: discussion was moving too fast to get all of it, refer to the recording for full details)

Motion to amend PM-2 [11:57]

 * The CHAIR put a motion to amend PM-2
 * Motion: Amend PM-2 to read "Repeal and remove from the party platform section 2.5 Marriage"
 * Ayes 4
 * James, John, Andrew, milspec
 * Nays 7
 * Miles, Bryn, Alex, Zach, David, JedB, Jay
 * Abstain 2 (Simon, Adam)
 * Motion NOT CARRIED at 12:07, PM-2 remains as is.

Motion to accept PM-2 [12:12]

 * The CHAIR invited Simon to move to accept PM-2 and progress it to a full member vote.
 * MOTION: Accept PM-2 as written to update the Marriage Policy
 * Put by: Simon Gnieslaw


 * Ayes
 * Bryn, Simon, Jay, Miles
 * Nays
 * Zach, Andrew, James, JedB
 * Abstain
 * JohnA, David, Adam, Milspec, AlexJ


 * Motion LAPSEs, PM-2 will not be put to the membership.

Lunch [12:29]

 * Before lunch, the President invites members to run for Policy Development Officer.


 * Procedural MOTION: adjourn for a 1 hour lunch
 * Put by: Miles Whiticker
 * Carried unanimously at 12:29

Introduction

 * Milspec: "I'm a progressive libertarian and a fan of capitalism. But I want to address market failures too, and level the playing field with rules which are as level as possible to avoid distortion. There's an overall shift here away from income tax, to land tax and capital gains
 * I've chosen a name "Citizen's Dividend" to reflect the recipients aren't quite universal. Citizens deserve a slice of the returns from the country's wealth. It's not welfare, it's something you deserve.
 * It's also aspirationally more than basic needs. It should scale based on the wealth of society. It's a post-scarcity vision.


 * Looking at the net income graph, you can see a fairly substantial uplift, and an avoidance of the welfare trap at about the $25000/year region. Everyone is incentivised to work in the same way
 * You might think "isn't this a bit regressive? Aren't we giving the high income earners a tax break?" Well, everyone gets a boost, and the way we're paying for it is in a very progressive way - capital gains and land tax, etc.


 * You might be wondering "what about negative income tax"? The argument for NIT is that we don't have to collect money and then give it back. But that increases complexity because you have to report income in near-real-time like the welfare system today. A simple payment that goes out to everyone avoids this.
 * We also avoid discrimination between citizens and non-citizens on the tax side - everyone gets the same.
 * With the NIT you'd have to nominate one employer, like today, as your primary employer regarding thresholds. With the Dividend, every job is PAYG at the same rate.


 * I've worked to balance the books on this - there shouldn't be net inflation. But I expect there'll be localised inflation. We're taking money from capital gains and land prices and giving it to lower income households. This should settle over time, especially with a phased introduction.


 * There's a section on displaced and retained existing welfare. The general rule I've applied is that income-based payments are displaced by the CD but payments for specific issues are retained (veterans, NDIS) - that subset of people also need more support than the CD can provide.


 * Miles: there's certainly a long discussion to be had today. Generally Pirates agree with these principles.
 * Question from JedB around intersection with (e.g.) minimum wage law


 * Comments from JohnA: I'm overall supportive. I think we need to emphasise that wealthy people will be taxed more overall, even if they get an income tax cut.
 * I want to bring up the weirdness budget: some things are a bit radical, but the richness of the proposal overall is impressive and I think that makes up for it in appeal.
 * I'm a bit leery of the "visa rent" and "taxing gifts/inheritances" sections - I worry it will freak prople out. But we can talk about economic issues in a way the bigger parties can't.
 * Finally, we should treat cryto mining as a business activity, not a capital gain.


 * Comments around still calling it a "basic income" for branding reasons
 * Our current policy is for an NIT, but we market it as a basic income


 * Question from Adam W around how this would apply to overseas Australians
 * Milspec: intention is for expats to get it


 * Milspec: I echo John and Andrew on a weirdness budget - we want to make headlines!
 * There's a bit here for the capitalists, and a bit here for the leftists who want to help people
 * So there's some things which can be shifted here which might change the balance

Section 1.2: flat income tax

 * We already have a flat tax as policy so this shouldn't be too controversial.
 * It's levelling for couples with very different incomes
 * With earned income making up a smaller percentage, we should adjust our tax structure accordingly


 * (much discussion, see recording)


 * Comments on the philosophy of progressivism in the tax system


 * Comment around the need for a tax-free threshold for permanent residents

Motion: remove section 1.2 "Transition to a Flat Income Tax System"

 * Put by: Swashbuckler
 * Ayes 4
 * Swashbuckler, idcrisis, Alex Jago, Jay
 * Nays 9
 * James, Zach, Adam, Andrew, Milspec, Bryn, Gold, JedB, JohnA
 * Abstain 3
 * David, Simon, Miles
 * Not carried, section retained

1.3 Land Value Tax

 * Milspec: the foundation here is that natural resources' wealth should be returned to the people
 * LVT is a lever that we can pull to moderate land value.
 * What I propose is to pull land value growth, in real terms, down to zero
 * The issue with existing state based LVT is portfolio-splitting across states and corporate structures
 * LVT also should be replacing payroll tax and stamp duty (and the proposed amount raises enough money to reimburse states for that)


 * Question from Adam: with this plus the fertiliser tax, isn't this a big hit to agricultural producers?
 * Miles: in theory, a land value tax can have exemptions carved into it for pro-social uses of land
 * Milspec: a lot of proposals exclude it. I've included it because it's the same rules for everybody.


 * Question from Simon: can LVT also replace council rates?
 * Several comments around council funding streams


 * Questions around conservation land:
 * milspec: using the land for conservation programmes should be supported by subsidy in a different programme
 * Miles: sure, but those aren't in the proposal right now


 * Support for a transitional provision to recognise stamp duty paid
 * Needs an amendment motion


 * Some discussion around the relative value of excluding owner-occupied housing


 * The CHAIR indicated intention to adjourn discussion on this subsection.


 * Adam noted possible intersection of this with Fusion housing policy.


 * Several minor amendments to be drafted overnight and returned to tomorrow.

Guest Speaker

 * Sven Clements is an elected MP in Luxembourg
 * degree in business informatics (Uni. Saarbruecken)
 * Elected in 2018 as one of two MPs with the Pirate Party
 * Indicted for "data theft" in 2012 after a whistleblower discovered a data leak
 * Sven was charged as part of his actions in exposing that


 * Since it's 35 minutes after the intended starting time, Miles and Sven will record an interview overnight instead, at a time more convenient for Sven!

Questions:


 * How did Sven get elected? - Simon

Miles had a few stimulus questions too:


 * Q: What was your background before you got into politics?
 * Q: What initially sparked your interest in Pirate politics?
 * Q: What is your role now, and what do you spend time doing?
 * Q: Can you tell us a little bit about your election campaign?
 * Q: How does Pirate Politics apply at a local council level?

MOTION: adjourn for the day

 * Put by: Miles Whiticker
 * Ayes 15
 * Carried unanimously