Pirate Congress 2015/Minutes

'Note:'' This is an early draft, preliminary interim minutes.

The full minutes will take some days to complete and verify, please check back later if you seek a full record of the congress discussions.'''

The Vote counts should be accurate and correct with only some of the percentages needing amending to account for votes missed by the bot due to a verification bug.

Discussion, Questions and Comments are being added over the coming days as we work through the audio recordings and notes. Constitutional Amendments are now done. Check back if you wish to see such discussion notes before voting on Policy Motions.

Timestamps e.g. [2:22:45] are for our own reference during the transcription process and will likely be removed in the finalised version.

=Day One: Saturday, 25 July 2015=

President opens Congress, housekeeping and adoption of standing orders

 * Welcome and introductions of Brendan Molloy (President), Simon Frew (Deputy President) and Daniel Judge (Secretary)
 * Explanation of how to participate online, getting voiced and so on.
 * Reading of Standing Orders:
 * http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/National_Congress_Standing_Orders

Daniel Judge (Secretary)

 * to be transcribed

Brendan Molloy (President)

 * to be transcribed

Simon Frew (Deputy President)

 * to be transcribed

CAP-0: Raising the quorum for constitutional amendments

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-0:_Raising_the_quorum_for_constitutional_amendments

Questions and comments
Question: Why do we need to do this?

Answer: Original Constitution was designed with a floating quorum starting at 10% so as to find a natural equilibrium for what a rational quorum was for the annual meetings, so it rises by a small percentage each year based on a vote. If it is never reached, then the clause is removed, so it is self adjusting quorum protection measure.

CAP-1: Principles Grammar

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-1:_Principles_Grammar

CAP-2: Articles Grammar A

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-2:_Articles_Grammar_A

Questions and comments
Question: Why change? I dont get it.

Answer: The change makes it correct english.

Comment: That is debatable.

CAP-3: Article Grammar B

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-3:_Article_Grammar_B

Questions and comments
Comment from Brendan addressing the published Rationale: That justification is not actually accurate. The Registered Officer role as defined in the constiution includes the Party Agent and is necessarily a sub role of the Registered Officer. So the National Council doesn't decide who is the Party Agent, it is always also the Registered Officer. So at least since the last congress the Party Agent has always been defined as the responsibility of the Registered Officer so this proposal doesn't solved whatever problem has been identified here... but the problem hasn't been expressed in any detail either.

Question to dcrafti: What is the rationale beyond what is stated there? Or is there nothing further.

Answer from dcrafti: I'm ok with it (the motion) being removed. I was unsure of it myself.

Comment from Brendan: There are still some minor quirks in this article that could be fixed in the future Previously we have changed the Party Agent Role and Registered Officer and moved some article numbers around so there may be some ambiguities that could be addressed.

Proposed Amendment from Brendan: Propose that we commit this to the CRC for further consideration.

Comment from Brendan: A note on the Constiutional Review Committee (CRC). Last year we formed the CRC, which didn't meet as often as we had hoped (which resulted in these motions being written by David rather than presented by the Committee). We would like more people with certain legal interests to join the CRC.

Comment from Fletcher: It seems that these issues could have been identified and fixed by the constitutional review committee in the past year.

Comment: The Committee ended up being pretty much David and Brendan and forum discussion with little participation and covering less since life and other issues got in the way. Now we have another 12 months.

CAP-4A: National Council Minutes Quorum & CAP-4B: National Council Minutes Quorum

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-4A:_National_Council_Minutes_Quorum
 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-4B:_National_Council_Minutes_Quorum

Questions and comments
Comment from Fletcher: The other solution to this issue is to just use the online voting mechanism already in place for NC votes. ie, a "CFV" (Call for vote)

Comment from Brendan: Yes, this is what we did historically, if there was ever an issue with this we have the mechanism to do an online email vote and we record it at the next NC meeting. If minutes couldnt be accepted we just waited til the next meeting and vote on them in a block. This however fixes that to make it less of a workaround.

Question from John A: I'd like to observe that at previous meetings I've been at the mover and seconder of the motion need to have been at the previous meeting but the general membership can vote on it. So in a sense you are voting on the trust of the people who move and second it, rather than saying you've actually been there.

Comment from dcrafti: I prefer CAP-4A to CAP-4B

Question from Andrew D: Unrelated to the motion at hand, but the 3 NC members at the front don't seem to be voting on anything. Is that normal, in previous years some have?

Answer: There no rules and we don't have to but can if we choose to, although traditionally the chair shouldn't vote (unless needed for a tiebreaker), but the NC members at the front of the room will only usually tend to vote if it is close and the votes would matter (if they so wish). Just kind of a convention and also for efficiency in regard to counting and other tasks. Also why Brendan stated if he wanted to argue something he'd pass chair to Frew, so as to allow him to actively participate.

Comment from Fletcher: I wonder if floor motions to change the environment of the room include moving the fedora to Simon's head

CAP-5: Articles Grammar C

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-5:_Articles_Grammar_C

Questions and comments
Comment from drafti: Brendan, this was one of yours, I thought

Comment from Brendan: I dont think it was but may have ended up in there from someone's suggestion

Comment from Brendan: This cant be withdrawn since once it was put as a formal Constitutional Amendment it becomes owned by the Congress and needs to be voted down. The person who put it cant withdraw it once submitted and deadline has passed. So prudent to vote this one down now that we know the person who put it thought Brendan wanted it, but now we know Brendan did not adviocate it either.

CAP-6: Articles Grammar D

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-6:_Articles_Grammar_D

Questions and comments
Comment from Melody: As someone who is known to be grammatically challenged, I am having so much fun right now.

Comment from Brendan: I agree this is a sensible change based on historical party practice. It makes it clear that our Terms of References do have power and if there is a dispute you take it to the Dispute Resolution Committee or raise it at a National Congress. (because the National Congress is the paramount governing body of the party, and any motion here can override any motion from anywhere else so long as it is in line with the Constiution)

Question from Brandon: Are the "special conditions" already set out in the constitution? (special conditions referred to in the Rationale)

Answer: This refers to the eligibility criteria specific in the Terms of References for that working group.

Comment from Brandon: I worry about the potential for ambiguity here. Maybe we should kick this one back to CRC.

Proposed Amendment from Fletcher: "Where eligible, participate in working groups defined by the National Council or any organ of the Party; and" since that would match 4.2.1 (1)b

Comment from Fletcher: Apologies for the technical nature of that, it makes more sense when you're sitting at a keyboard. Also it's slightly shorter and covers other possible eligibility clauses.

Comment from dcrafti: The point of this proposal is to ensure that the NC can ensure that a person has a particular qualification, if necessary, but which can't be predicted in the constitution.

Comment from Rundll: I don't think this should go to CRC, we can resolve it now.

Comment from Brendan: My position is that neither of these amendments are bad, I agree with both and don't see why we'd need to put this back to the review committee. It's just saying how we set rules for joining stuff.

Comment from Brandon: As long as the constitution already has those mechanisms in place, that satisfies me.

Question from Yiannis C: The original point of the amendment was to clarify that the National Council can specify Terms of Reference for Working Groups. So does the addition of 'or any organ of the party' add more ambiguity to this?

Answer from Brendan: The original had 'or any organ' as well ('any organ' wasn't added). An example of 'any organ' may be the Policy Development Committee which can create their own working groups; they can only create those because the National Council tells them they can.

CAP-7: Articles Grammar E

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-7:_Articles_Grammar_E

Questions and comments
Comment from Brendan: I supported this, it is sensible and fixes a potential loophole that this National Council would be unlikely to exploit but "can't trust the voter".

CAP-8: Articles Grammar F

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-8:_Articles_Grammar_F

Questions and comments
Comment from Fletcher: Given that various terms of reference within the party rely on approval by multiple NC members this amendments should be modified to to extend the restriction beyond motions before the council to any place where a council member is required.

Comment from Brendan: No, because this is specifically in relation to the National Council. It can be implied for other Terms of Reference that that is the default, but it could be the the case that the Terms of Reference for another committee could have a different rule. We can fix this with a by-law if we ever need to, but can't be fixed by amending this because this section is specific to the National Council. If we need to amend it again next year, that's fine, but this one here just codifies the corrent line. In an example, codifies that if an NC position were vacant and someone was fulfilling two positions, ensures they cannot assert that they have two votes (which is much more important than a random guy in a committee that can be overruled by the NC).

CAP-9: Remove legal binding provisions

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-9:_Remove_legal_binding_provisions

Questions and comments
Comment from Brendan: The history of this line was that when first forming an organisation you want to be as 'non-legally bound' as possible while still forming, so it is less relevant now as we are no longer an 'unincorporated association' in which people were personally liable for things (in which case you don't want a document that links you as all liable as a single 'pseudo-individual'). Getting rid of it now doesn't hurt anything anymore, plus most of it isn't enforceable now anyway since we are a NSW incorporated association. Bureaucracy!

Ten Minute Break was held.

CAP-10: Dispute Resolution Committee term clarification

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-10:_Dispute_Resolution_Committee_term_clarification

Questions and comments
Comment from Brendan: To extent upon the rationale slightly, we are currently in a situation where we have phased elections of the DRC. We only election two one year as there were not enough people to fill it so from then on each year we've alternated between electing 1 position or 2 positions (positions are for 2 years). So this merely codifies this as a legitimate practice. The literal opposite to just say they are fixed two year terms would be preferred (ie if a new person enters half way through their term still ends with the others), however, this merely codifies the current practice which is ok, but would propose it is fixed properly next year. I understand David wanted to go through this section and have a more thorough attempt at redoing the DRC article, but this at least fixes it for now.

Comment from Frew: As a side-note. I don't think we've ever had the DRC need to be used, it has never had anything referred to it ever.

Comment from Brendan: The best DRC is one that never has to be used.

CAP-11: DRC referral protection

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-11:_DRC_referral_protection

Questions and comments
Comment from Brendan: From that nightmare of a sentence you can see why we need to redo this whole article; but this amendment adds a subpoint that ensures the National Council cannot stop something being referred to the DRC. There are bigger issues with this article, and this doesn't necessarily solve the underlying issue, sioce the length of the whole block means it is unclear when or when not the NC can have its policies overrule different things. It needs to be made a bit more straightforward. It's never been used so it's never been engaged enough to mean we have needed to amend it, but this at least makes it clear that members know that they can refer stuff there regardless of whether or not an NC motion says not to.

CAP-12: Fundamental rewrite of principles

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-12:_Fundamental_rewrite_of_principles

Questions and comments
Comment from Brendan: There's only four more words in the original statement. As posted on forum: "No. Just no. I don't like it on any level. It's something one might find in the Liberal Democratic Party constitution, not ours." Because it fundamentally rewrites things on an economic basis when the original wording goes to the core issue of everything. It goes to laws and culture, not just about money. We cover all aspects in the original sentence. Fundamentally against the changes because it fundamentally changes the party's make up.

Comment from mandrke: Does not sound like a Pirate Party Statement

Comment from Gator: Original wording sounds more radical

Question from Fletcher: did Simon write the old text? (it sounds like Frew)

Answer from Brendan: It was definitely Rodney, though may have had more commas in it before. We had to teach rdney to use hyphens instead, and then we had a bigger problem.

Comment from tserong: the third sentence won't follow if this amendment happens as the third sentence references laws which aren't present anymore in the second sentence

Comment from Rundll: I also dislike this, it moves to much meaning to 'competition' and 'business practices'

Comment from dcrafti: I didn't write the statement, but I preferred it because it was broken into 2 sentences. I'd be happy with anything that isn't so wordy, and matches our reason for being.

Comment from dcrafti: I'd like to refer it back to the CRC then... It needs to be improved, but I guess the proposed wording isn't great.

Comment from Brendan: CRC has power to address this, but I think this result is a resounding "nothing like that sentence, at all". So we'll need to work on that a bit more.

Comment from Keating: In the vein that David said that woridng in that motion is horrible, but having said that, the original text probably needs a bit of massaging to make it look nicer for people in general. More readable for the less linguistically inclined. Massage it over the next 12 months and deal with it next year.

CAP-13 Amendment A: Incorporate by-law 2013-03

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-13_Amendment_A:_Incorporate_by-law_2013-03

Questions and comments
Comment by Brendan: Wrote an ammendment to implement CAP-13 since incorporate doesnt tell you how. A by-law is not written in a way to just slot into the Constitution verbatim in a way that would make sense, so I've taken the wording and make it 'constiutional'. There was also some changes to the amendment to rectify some words because it looked like we had to notify the amendments themselves instead of people. You will not the By-Law is very similar in wording. The constitution didnt say how to notify people, so the by-law clarifies that and things such as times etc. If the updates are recorded and justified (as outlined in the by-law, then the Congress can make the determination as to whether they accept those changes. So it's a no loss situation and allows people to correct typos in advance so we don't spend all out time at congress doing so. (any devious last minute changes can be readily rolled-back)

CAP-14: Multiple party membership

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Constitutional_Amendments#CAP-14:_Multiple_party_membership

Questions and comments
Comment from Brendan: Not true that the National Council can add categories. Such changes need to go to a majority vote of the membership as per https://pirateparty.org.au/constitution/#4.3(1). Also reads from https://pirateparty.org.au/constitution/#4.2.1

Opposed to this change as don't see point of introducing this ambiguity. Understands that the idea behind it is to allow non-full members to join our party while being a member of another party (not strictly opposed to, but it would need to be very strictly defined). Associated membership as currently defined allows people not enrolled to vote such as overseas etc to join (can have people from other country parties). This additional line comes after the other rules and doesnt reference those well enough. Would like to put it to CRC.

Comment from dcrafti: Yep, I misread that. I thought the NC could create the categories

Comment from Rebecca: we received several enquiries over facebook from people who wanted to support the party but were members of other parties, and were confused by whether the 'associate member' tier could apply to them

Comment from Brendan: yep, and replied to those people, sorry about the confusion, but no they are not currently eligible. I did write a very detailed proposal (which i dont want to go into much here) but essentially to keep the full member tier, change the associate member tier to give them effectively the same rights as full members where legally possible bit only open to permanent residents (ie for people who intend to become a citizen and be a full member) and create a 'supporter member' with an explicit international sub-category. So it made it all very clear & easy administration, because when we create state branches there are issues such as NSW not being allowed to accept donations from anyone outside the country. Specific administrative requirements that would make things divergent and harder to maintain. We want to avoid mess. So while there is an interest, we need better fully fleshed proposals. [2:22:30]

Proposed Procedural Motion from Brandon: Amend the agenda to include discussion of membership of the CRC.

Comment from Brendan: Not a full motion, where would you want to slot it in? But if you are after the CRC the details are on the forum and website and you just need email the NC to apply to join. It is open to all members, legally qualified or otherwise, but nice if you are.

Comment from Brandon: I'll just email the secretary after congress to discuss it with them. I withdraw my motion

POLICY MOTIONS
[2:37:30]

PM-1: Distributed Digital Currencies and Economies

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions#PM-1:_Distributed_Digital_Currencies_and_Economies
 * To accept the proposed Distributed Digital Currencies and Economies Policy https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions/Policy_and_Platform/Distributed_Digital_Currencies_and_Economies_Policy

Questions and comments

 * yet to be transcribed

PM-2: Digital Liberties

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions#PM-2:_Digital_Liberties
 * To replace the existing Digital liberties Policy with the proposed Digital liberties Policy https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions/Policy_and_Platform/Digital_Liberties_Update

Questions and comments

 * yet to be transcribed

PM-3: Cultural Policy

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions#PM-3:_Cultural_Policy
 * To accept the proposed Cultural Policy https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions/Policy_and_Platform/Cultural_Policy

Questions and comments
Question from Yiannis C[3:22:30]: Asset Recycling fund is still with the Parliament and unsure if it is going to go through, is this policy contingent on its passage through parliament and if so and it doesn't pass will we be sourcing funds for this policy from other sources of income?

Answer from MarkG: [3:23:15] The Asset Recycling fund has actually passed parliament and it actually used existing funding and turned it into a special fund that when state governments sold public assets, they would get an incentive payment to do that. That's the purpose of the Asset Recycling Fund - That's already happened. What's in parliament now is a proposal to extend the Asset Recycling fund into the future, but there's already about $6billion sitting in the fund, some has already been used, but we'd be drawing from that.

Question from John A: Are there plans to cover community radio in future developments of the policy?

Answer from Andrew D: Admittedly we hadn't thought of that during development but it sounds like an excellent addition and if you'd like to contribute to that during that year that would be wonderful.

Comment from dcrafti: The disused buildings thing would need lots of nuanced legislation to create something that wouldn't be a mess.

Comment from mandrke: I still do not like a proscribed specific Licence

Comment from Rundll: I'll have a motion to change the word "product" in the preamble para 3 to "works"

Comment from Brandon: We'll also be fighting with a lot of other community organisations for the use of disused private property

Question from Brendan: (arising from the above) It seems a very badly worded paragraph for something that says we are going to be taking someones property. And the market often finds use for these properties with pop up markets etc

Answer from Andrew D: We're not saying we would be taking someone's property, but there are plenty of places like this that are sitting around disused in some areas due to lack of activity. If you dont maintain, or take care of or 'continue your claim' on the property for an extended period of time it becomes liable to squatters. One way to avoid it becoming at risk of squatters etc is to put it to this sort of public use. By allowing it's use in this contextyou would then be exempt from that.

Comment from Brendan: But that's not what the policy states. It just says unused property should be usable by the commons and that is the extent of it. It needs more detail than that to actually be a feasible non-argumentative part of the policy. The policy currently reads like the state will just say "lol library" and take it (til you can prove to us you can get a tenant).

Answer from Andrew D: Yes, that could be expressed better and an 'option for the owner'. Happy to accept amendments along that line.

Comment from dcrafti: We can't allow the use of property that puts obligations on the landlord. That would be worse than having squatters

Comment from Brandon: Happy to work on that one with the original policy drafters

Comment from Brendan: Unless someone wants to write something more detailed, I'd propose for now an amendment that just scraps that section and sends it back to the PDC for review.

Comment from Brendan: Note also the Constitution does allow us to hold policy meetings beyond congresses and so owe can amend policies more regularly if need be. We can have them when needed so if there is an issue, easy to just chop that bit and address it later.

Comment from Andrew D: Most of our policies have a tendency to have a negative flavour where we are against this bad thing the government's doing. In this case we wanted to institute a policy that was about creating new institutions and expanding existing ones. Also helps to ward off criticism that we just want to tear down copyright and so 'how is an artist going to make a living'. This is a 'here's how' and describing a system where that may come together in a very positive policy direction.

Comment from Andrew D: Also Credit to Sunny Kalsi who was responsible for a fair amount of this policy but couldn't be here today. Proposed Amendment by Thomas Randle: In Cultural Policy, Preamble, end of Paragraph 3: Replace "creation of product for society's benefit." with "creation of new and derivative creative works for society’s benefit."

Comment from Thomas Randle: Motion justification, creative works are better referred to as "works" as its scope is greater than just product, which is more commercial

Procedural Motion from Fletcher: Chair is temporarily passed to Simon for the rest of the policy motions with responsibility of initial text reading remaining with Brendan.

Comment from Fletcher: Since there was a question regarding the reasoning, Brendan has more opinions

Questions and comments (cont.)
Comment from Mozart: Offering a further amendment to Thomas' amendment. Instead of "creative works" we put "creative materials" because part 3 of the Copyright Act refers to "works" and Part 4 refers to subject matter other than works, which includes film and audio recordings. So just to be clear there is a bit of a difference between them, so you really want to capture all materials. So "creative materials" is broad enough to cover everything we want, bit doesn't go too far into other areas of intellectual property. (materials includes works, and should be broad enough)

Comment from Mozart: So same motion amendment but with 'creative works' changed to 'creative materials'

Comment from Thomas Randle: Accepts the change.

Comment from Andrew D: As an aside, during the researching of this policy, we cam across this concept that ... if you think about Libraries as compared to filesharing, and what libraries are for, and what filesharing is for, you come to an interesting abstract realisation that libraries serve the same purpose; they are just less efficient. And noone would ever argue to make libraries less efficient. So in large part what we are doing here is improving the efficiency of libraries such that they move up to the current age.

New amended amendment text:


 * In Cultural Policy, Preamble, end of Paragraph 3: Replace "creation of product for society’s benefit." with "creation of new and derivative creative materials for society’s benefit."

Proposed Amendment:


 * Remove the block that begins with "Allow disused private property for use by libraries" and refer it back to the Policy Development Committee.

Questions and comments
Comment from Fletcher: Apologies for the initial procedural motion, didn't work as intended for both technical and bureaucratic reasons I hadn't considered.
 * A minor debate about breaks and whether the chair can declare a 10 minute break or needs a procedural motion in the room ensues. Brendan decides to move a motion to put himself back as chair.

Ten minute break

PM-4: Foreign policy and treaty making

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions#PM-4:_Foreign_policy_and_treaty_making
 * To replace the existing Foreign policy and treaty making Policy with the proposed Foreign policy and treaty making Policy https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions/Policy_and_Platform/Foreign_Policy_and_Treaty_Making_Update

Questions and comments
Further Policy Rationale/Explanation from MarkG:


 * A few changes form old verison of this policy.
 * Changed reference to meeting aid goal by 2014 which has now passed and obviously cant happen.
 * Old version was not explicit on reasons for pulling out of some of the named treaties, now they are grouped under headings that explain this.
 * The old version didn't cover defence at all, so that is the main addition to this new version.


 * Reason for adding Defence.
 * Most people probably assume we don't support foreign military adventures, but we may as well make it explicit that we do not.
 * If you want to purely defend a country surrounded by ocean then it is submarines that you want.
 * You can't bomb the middle east with subs, but they do provide an enourmous defensive advantage agianst anyone that actually tries to attack your own country.
 * Modern subs are very powerful self-defence tools. But they aren't agressive tools: they cant control the ocean or push you out.\
 * They also have useful peace-time uses for oceanography and science
 * They are a solid investment that you can make in defence while topping it up with necessary land & other defence etc so as to increase whatever forces the enemy would need to send into the 'teeth of the subs'
 * It creates a situation where with the existing amount that we spend on defence, we can make ourselves self sufficient.
 * We just have to invest a bit more wisely and don't spend money on things we don't need
 * This policy also defends us because the obvious response to a lot of our intellectual property policies are that if we piss off the USA so much that they may not defend us anymore so how will we be defended. Well this policy provides and answer to that question.

Comment from Brandon: Of course, we'll have to overall domestic whistleblower laws first.

Answer: Probably covered adequately by this policy http://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policies/Reform_of_Democratic_Institutions#Improve_transparency_and_credibility_in_systems_of_governance or if not can expand on this over the year.

Comment from Brandon: Agreed on submarines, but given controversies with submarines in Australia over the last 15 years, it'll be a hard sell

Question from Brendan F: I notice that we expanded a lot of Navy matters, which is good, but should we also expand on Army matters, for example perhaps a focus on Engineers whch can have dual use for local development and so on. Or is that not relevant?

Answer from MarkG: We probably could, there is quite a big pipeline of equipment and capital investment already going to the Army and we are not proposing to change that substantially at this stage. We havent gone to that level of detail on defence since it is not really a core policy for the Pirate Party.

Question from John A: I do feel that submarines do have an offensive capability. Submarines deny the enemy the use of the sea, but in that sense they can represent a tool of agression. I can see where you are coming from but there are a few other details of submarine warfare that need to be worked out.

Answer from MarkG: There's two ways to fight on the ocean. There's sea control, which is literally giant warships. The purpose of sea control is to give you a channel to the territory of your opponent. The offsetting strategy to that is sea denial, and sea denial attempts to disrupt that channel of control, and sea denial is the speciality of modern submarines. They are not that useful for sea control.

Comment from Ben: If we piss off the USA too much we get what happened in 1975...

PM-5: Health

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions#PM-5:_Health
 * To accept the proposed Health Policy https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions/Policy_and_Platform/Health_Policy

Questions and comments

 * yet to be transcribed

PM-6: Energy, Environment and Climate Change

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions#PM-6:_Energy.2C_Environment_and_Climate_Change
 * To replace the existing Energy, environment and climate change Policy with the proposed Energy, environment and climate change Policy https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions/Policy_and_Platform/Energy,_Environment_and_Climate_Change_Update

Questions and comments

 * yet to be transcribed

PM-7: Education

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions#PM-7:_Education
 * To replace the existing Education Policy with the proposed Education Policy https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions/Policy_and_Platform/Education_Update

Questions and comments

 * yet to be transcribed

PM-8: Civil Liberties

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions#PM-8:_Civil_Liberties
 * To replace the existing Civil liberties Policy with the proposed Civil liberties Policy https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions/Policy_and_Platform/Civil_Liberties_Update

Questions and comments

 * yet to be transcribed

=Day Two: Sunday, 26 July 2015=

Nominations

 * See the Nominations page for information about candidates
 * Simon Frew to President as unopposed
 * Mark Gibbon to Treasurer as unopposed
 * David Crafti to Registered Officer as unopposed
 * Andrew Downing remains as Policy Development Officer as no nominations are forthcoming.
 * remaining positions will go to 7 day party wide online vote after Congress.

Questions and comments

 * yet to be transcribed

PM-9: Tax and Welfare

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions#PM-9:_Tax_and_Welfare
 * To replace the existing Tax and welfare Policy with the proposed Tax and welfare Policy https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions/Policy_and_Platform/Tax_and_Welfare_Update

Questions and comments

 * yet to be transcribed

PM-10: Declaration of platform and principles

 * https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions#PM-10:_Declaration_of_platform_and_principles
 * To replace the existing Declaration of platform and principles with the proposed Declaration of platform and principles https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2015/Motions/Policy_and_Platform/Declaration_of_Principles_Update

Questions and comments

 * yet to be transcribed

Procedural Motions
Amending the Agenda:

Amending the Agenda:

Discussion Topics

 * Discussions yet to be transcribed
 * As these are not Position Elections, Policy Amendments or Constitutional Amendments these motions do not need to go to the party wide online 7 day vote.
 * These motions concern generalised party positions or instructions from the Congress to the incoming National Council.

Constitutional Reform for Australia

 * No Motions arising, topic to be discussed by party over coming years in various ways [more detail to be added]