User:Mozart

Press Officer

Undergraduate music student, musician and writer.

Contact:

[mailto:mozart.palmer@pirateparty.org.au Email]

Twitter

Blog

2012 Congress Statement on PPI
Pirate Parties International is the international organisation to which Pirate Party Australia, and the majority of other Pirate Parties around the world belong. While I recognise the necessity for strong international relations and a united front to help push not just for domestic but also international change, I recognise that PPI is not achieving this as efficiently as we would like.

PPI has done very little to aid our cause. It is extremely Euro-centric, and no amount of token effort to appease us is going to make the non-European parties feel as though they are considered as valuable as those within the EU. True, there has been success in elections in Sweden, Austria and Germany – but the trickle-down effect is not as strong as in Europe. Our geographical isolation and general political apathy, coupled with an unfavourable media environment does not impact on us as much as it should, or as much as the Europeans would like to think.

We have done more to network with other Pirate Parties simply through members talking to each other than PPI has ever done. The social aspects of the annual PPI GA are only valuable to those who can afford to attend. Through informal, discussions and mutual assistance, we have strong connections with the Dutch, New Zealand, UK and American Pirates in particular.

The formal structure of PPI is very rigid. So much so that common sense and compassion find it difficult to prevail. When the rules are not clearly defined, yet are expected to be stuck to, we have problems. We can either have strictly adhered-to and complete rules, or informal and flexible rules. As a member of the PPI Court of Arbitration, I enjoy working at the international level. I am interested in seeing us move as a united group, and am happy to play a part in keeping the necessary level of peace.

I understand that consensus is often difficult and impossible to achieve. It would be idealistic to believe that it is otherwise. But we tolerate difference from those we fundamentally relate to, and we share ideas to promote a common goal. This is how any movement should work. But when individual pirates disagree on an international level to an extent where personal attacks are exchanged, this divides the movement for no good reason. When blocs develop between parties because the leaders of those parties share a mutual contempt for a leader of another, we must ask ourselves why we are doing this.

I have recently put forward a proposal within PPI. That proposal was designed to ensure all parties had an internal democratic structure. The longer I am on the CoA, the more reports I hear about the lack of democracy within other Pirate Parties. We are not perfect, but in comparison to other Pirate Parties, we are leaders in the trek toward a new way of governing. At the moment I am frustrated with the resistance to this proposal. The organisation is slowly and pedantically trying to understand its own rules. PPI is good at enforcing standards of operation in theory. It is useful to have an organisation to which members can join only if they meet certain defined requirements that match the Pirate ideology. But there is a lack of definition of those requirements. For example: many were outraged at the Court of Arbitration's ruling that Catalonia constitutes a country. Catalonia is a semi-autonomous region of Spain. The PPI General Assembly voted in favour of admitting it. And it matches all dictionary definitions of the word.

The conference in April was frustrating because it was inefficient and inflexible. Motions could not be modified on the floor as they can here. And this is why the current statutes are not gender-neutral, and are not even consistent in their use of pronouns. When we pointed out that "she" should be changed to "they" in one of the motions, we were ignored. It was to be motioned that the statutes be checked for grammar and spelling mistakes and presented as a modified version at the next conference. Just as I am presenting a modified platform. But the difference is it can be changed now, rather than sitting for twelve months with mistakes we could have fixed easily.

And this is the key issue. Pirate Parties International wants to be a formal organisation, but cannot behave formally. Rules can be broken without repercussions sometimes, and other times the rules cannot be broken. The organisation can either be rigid or flexible; not both. PPI formalised too quickly, and now it's a bureaucratic nightmare. I would like to point out that Piratpartiet, the Swedish Pirate Party, the first Pirate Party, have not joined. Yet they are still respected and welcomed within the international community.

However, I am an optimist. I believe that there may still be hope for PPI.

We Are the Artists Too
An international association of Pirates who are also artists. The association would aim to raise awareness of the effects of copyright on artists, and also to promote and discover new business models and opportunities for artists in the emerging era of copyright reform. This is in reaction to the "We Are the Artists" group opposing copyright reform in Germany as a backlash against the Pirate Party there.

Some features might include:–
 * Informal structure with three positions elected at regular intervals (chair, deputy chair, and press officer):
 * Chair would facilitate meetings and organisational issues;
 * Deputy chair would work with the chair, and take over in case the Chair is unavailable;
 * Press officer would interact with media to promote the ideas publicly.
 * Distinctly separate from any current Pirate Party organisation – does not want to be PWB or PPI related;
 * Confined to creators only (broad term to be defined; a solution can be found I'm sure);
 * Adherence to the three-pirate rule;
 * No exclusion based on geography;
 * Requirement to actually be a member of a Pirate Party;
 * A general, non-contentious charter that members can agree and follow.

Platform amendment
To add to the Platform, under the section "Reform of Democratic Institutions," the following text:


 * Improving electoral participation


 * Pirate Party Australia encourages the maximisation of political participation. As part of the global movement that is well known for its interest in the concept of fluid (or direct) democracy, we have strived to investigate new means of political participation. We intended to seize the opportunities that modern communication technologies provide to change the nature of politics towards increased participation. However, in 2013 Parliament passed a bill amending the Electoral Act which doubled the cost of the nomination fee for contesting elections.


 * It was unthinkable that Parliament would pass such exclusionary measures, but now that Pirate Party Australia has been confronted with this change, there is concern that future Parliaments may continue the trend of discouraging alternative representatives. In response to this, Pirate Party Australia pledges to do all it can to restore candidate fees to a reasonable level, and to oppose legislation that would introduce further unfair burdens on candidates.

Position statement
Improving electoral participation

Pirate Party Australia encourages the maximisation of political participation. As part of the global movement that is well known for its interest in the concept of fluid democracy, and its admittedly lacking implementation as Liquid Feedback (used by the Pirate Parties in Germany and Italy, among others), Pirate Party Australia has strived to investigate new means of political participation. We are one of the few political parties in Australia that provides for the remote participation of members and online voting. We intend to seize the opportunities that modern communication technologies provide to change the nature of politics.

However, while the Internet particularly is opening up new methods of participation, Pirate Party Australia and other minor parties exist because their members do not feel existing parties adequately represent their interests and views in Parliament. To rectify this, we and other parties contest elections. This aim is stated in our constitution.

In 2013, both houses of the Federal Parliament passed a bill amending the Electoral Act 1918 (Cwlth). Among other innocuous changes, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Act 2012 (Cwlth) included an amendment to the Electoral Act that doubled the nomination deposit (fee) for contesting elections. As a result, the fee per Senate candidate is $2000, while the House of Representatives is $1000, coming to a combined cost of more than $300,000 to contest every electorate and run full Senate tickets.

Pirate Party Australia views this as a serious affront to democracy. This is a deliberate stacking of future elections in favour of incumbent parties, and deprives Australians --- both electors and candidates --- of true democratic participation and fulfilment. While Pirate Party Australia has disagreed on numerous counts with the actions of previous Parliaments, this places an unfair burden on parties and candidates that do not have the same membership numbers and corporate sponsorship that well established parties enjoy. This is not conducive to a multi-party democracy, and directly effects our ability to reverse the poor decisions of previous Parliaments.

It was unthinkable that Parliament would pass such exclusionary measures, but now that Pirate Party Australia has been confronted with this change, there is concern that future Parliaments may continue the trend of discouraging alternative representatives.

In response to this, Pirate Party Australia pledges to do all it can to restore candidate fees to a reasonable level, and to oppose legislation that would introduce unfair restrictions on candidates. The Party also supports a referendum to include protection against onerous or excessive requirements on candidates standing for election to the Federal Parliament in the Australian Constitution, similar to that which appears in the Canadian Constitution. In Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), it was ruled that several sections of the Canada Elections Act were unconstitutional as they violated section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects the right to play a meaningful role in the electoral process.

Pirate Party Australia recognises the need for similar protections in Australia.