Policy and Preselection Meeting 2013/Amendments

By: Mark Street
Amended by Brendan Molloy

Motion to amend the wording of section "Remove copyright restrictions applying to publicly funded material." to:


 * Crown copyright will be abolished for all material produced by government, including:
 * Bills, statutes, regulations, ordinances, by-laws and proclamations, and explanatory memoranda or explanatory statements relating to those  materials;
 * Judgements, orders and awards of any court or tribunal;
 * Official records of parliamentary debates and reports of parliament, including reports of parliamentary committees;
 * Reports of commissions of inquiry, including royal commissions and ministerial and statutory inquiries;
 * Other categories of material prescribed by regulation.
 * Open Access provisions will be for required for all publicly financed scientific and academic research.
 * Publicly financed institutions will be required to release all scientific and academic works under principles of Open Access.
 * Publicly financed institutions will be required to provide all raw data collected (anonymised as necessary) in an open and searchable format, via government infrastructure if required.
 * Repositories will be required to make publicly funded research available to the public under principles of Open Access, and free of charge.
 * Government funded software will be made open-source, excepting cases where disclosure threatens national security.

Justification
It is not possible to "Abolish Copyright" for one portion of the community and not for others. Researchers make their careers by being published and referenced It is the access and reach that matters, not the owndership. Our policy already covers limitations to copyright duration and scope. Better to enforce conditions on any government funded institution, grant or money for reasearch that all the data collected as part of the research is made public, and that all the research results and papers are made available, free of charge and free of restriction. This is still compatible with 15 year copyright. The pros and cons of various types of "Open Source" have been debated at previous congresses, this equally applies to "Open Data" and "Open Access". I think we should state that we are for it (in principle) in the policy, and then choose an exact type at a later stage

Rodney Serkowski
Motion to amend the first paragraph of the Proposed Policy Amendment to read as:

Copyright laws are a statutory monopoly artificially applied to information and culture that are traditionally justified as a balance between the rights of content creators and the rights of society. Properly applied, such laws encourage creative output by providing a limited monopoly for artists and writers over the use and distribution of their work. On expiry of copyright (which originally lasted for 28 years) work entered the public domain to be used and built on by others.

Justification
There are various reasons for the copyright monopoly, not all are about balance, can be about censorship and control of information, and it is often wielded as such. I think there is a consensus it can be justified well as a balance, however we should also be wary of simply accepting copyright as a necessary part of a balance in all info policy.

Patent Policy
By Mark Street

Amend "Patent laws do, however, grant a temporary monopoly over an idea." to: "Patent laws do, however, grant a temporary monopoly over an expression of an idea."

Justification
Not factually correct, ideas are not patentable, this is explicit in law. However line does blur in Software area "functional patents" are a patent on an Idea, but this is already covered in our policy later. Better to not start the policy with a factual inaccuracy

Digital liberties policy
By Arik Baratz, through sponsorship of Brendan Molloy

Seconded by Ben McGinnes

Amend the first point below Provide universal access to a fast, neutral Internet to:

...packet sources or destinations, unless
 * 1) The default package offered to the user of an ISP contains no such screening or prioritising; and
 * 2) The user can opt-in to a package that will prioritise certain types of traffic by protocol or destination

Amendment to the censorship section to include a new point:
 * An ISP can provide internet censorship and/or filtering to its customers, provided that the package that is offered must be provided on an opt-in only basis.

George Campbell - 1
Remove requirement of vaccination, school attendance and minimum parenting standards for parenting supplement.

George Campbell - 2
Remove replacing I&A test with means test.

Ian
Remove all clauses related to couples with the effect that everybody is treated as single.

George Campbell - 3
Amend "Cut the company tax rate from 30% to 25%" to include:

[...] subject to cash flow tax revenue, and other changes to be revenue neutral.

Arik's amendments
Motions by Arik - sponsored by Brendan Molloy

Amendment (1): Remove all mention of specific drugs from the policy, replaced by drugs belonging to the category will be decided on by the controlled substances committee.

Amended by Brendan Molloy to split into (1a) removing specific mention of marijuana, and (1b) removing specific mentions of LSD and psilocybin.

Amendment (2): remove the words "life and death", replace with "safety and health considerations require practitioners not to be under any unnecessary influence

Amendment (3): for plant based drugs subject to the legalised drugs tax, growing your own plants would not be subjected to the tax

David Kennedy
Replace "Users who work in professions with "life and death" obligations to others may face suspension of their right to practice under civil law." with "Users who work in professions subject to occupational health & safety regulations may face suspension of their right to practice under civil law"

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.

Subcultures
By: Robyn Lawrie-Martyn

Motion to amend the wording to:

"Guarantees freedom from discrimination by government, based on any arbitrary or generalised condition, including gender, age, sexual orientation, race, religion (or lack thereof), social sub-cultural and political affiliation."

Current Text: Non-Discrimination

The right for all permanent residents and citizens to be treated equally by the state. Guarantees freedom from discrimination by government, based on any arbitrary or generalised condition, including gender, age, sexual orientation, race, religion (or lack thereof), and political affiliation.

Amended Text: Non-Discrimination

The right for all permanent residents and citizens to be treated equally by the state. Guarantees freedom from discrimination by government, based on any arbitrary or generalised condition, including gender, age, sexual orientation, race, religion (or lack thereof), social sub-cultural and political affiliation.

Justification
Argument: to ensure that those who are part of a social sub-culture (i.e. alternatives, gothics, punks, etc) are also protected under the Bill of Rights to participate in their sub-culture without fear of reprisal or stereotyping.

Euthanasia
Put by Seamus

Amend: Delete line referring to Euthanasia.

Reason: Any generic right to individual-determined death ought to be covered by the point above, Euthanasia as a specific issue ought to be a legislative matter, not a constitutional aspect of the bill of rights. A bill of rights ought to be generic. We can have a policy on euthanasia, I just think that should be separate.