Pirate Congress 2023/Motions

= Formal Motions =

FM-1: Application to join Pirate Parties International
Put by: Jay Stephens, on behalf of the Foreign & International Relations Committee

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

Rationale
Since passing the motion to leave the PPI (see: https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2014/Motions#FM-1:_Conditional_withdrawal_from_Pirate_Parties_International) the following conditions have been met:


 * 1) An online General Assembly is held (this is now routine, and PPAU representatives have attended two recent GAs), and there is ongoing work to improve e-democracy see article XI. Voting, at https://pp-international.net/about-ppi/statutes-of-ppi/#Board)
 * 2) The following statute amendments have been instituted:
 * 3) Remote delegates are given equal ability to participate in the formal aspects of General Assemblies.
 * 4) Transparency and participation has been greatly improved (this started as early as 2016, see MO-4 at https://wiki.pp-international.net/wiki/index.php?title=PPI_Conference_2016/Other_proposals, which was adopted).
 * 5) Participation has improved for geographies beyond the core nordic/Central European area, with Bailey Lamon from North America, Florie Marie from France, Alexander Isavin from Russia, and Mauricio Vargas from Spain on the current board until December.
 * 6) The Board has remained relatively stable for at least five years, with far more than 50% of elected board members serving out their term over that period.

In addition, during the last 12 months, outreach by the Foreign and International relations committee has met with a warm response, and we have been explicitly welcomed when participating at the GA.

Finally, the financial commitment for PPI affiliation fees will not exceed 50 Euros per year, given that PPAU will not be placed in a PPI membership tier higher than "Emerging Member", as we collect donations but do not having paying members (see: https://wiki.pp-international.net/wiki/index.php?title=Affiliation_fees#Current_rules_(for_fees_2019_and_later) )

Result

 * Passed on the floor of Congress 2023
 * Proceeds to online member vote for ratification

= Policy and Platform Amendment Motions =

PM-1 Economics policy update
Put by: milspec

Motion
Adopt the proposed text found here (with the exclusion of the author notes and explanatory notes) replacing the existing "Economic Reform" section of the platform.

Rationale
Please refer to the author notes within the policy text.

Result

 * Carried on the Congress floor with several amendments
 * Proceeds to online member vote for ratification

PM-2 Marriage policy update
Put by: Simon Gnieslaw

Motion
Adopt the proposed text found here.

Rationale
The entire policy as it sits currently is very logically inconsistent as it basically was saying "We don't think that the state should have anything to do with marriage, therefore we want to repeal it, and then make the state control Civil Unions instead!".

Putting in 'Civil Union' legislation would totally defeat the point of removing state control because it is replacing it with another state control of almost the same thing rather than remove state control!

The whole Civil Union discussion at the time of the plebiscite was essentially already a compromise to call a legal marriage some other name than "marriage".

But Same-Sex Marriage campaigners were very adamant and very specific that they want MARRIAGE, and not something under a different name. By making it a different name, it makes the implication that they are not worthy of MARRIAGE like every other couple before them. It also gives a petty vibe of "If straight couples can't keep MARRIAGE exclusive to themselves, they would rather that no one will get it".

Obviously, I know that this wasn't our intent and we were strong campaigners for the YES side of Same-Sex Marriage at the time. But it is the optics of having outdated thinking still up there.

I am sure that most Pirates or Civil Libertarians would not want to take up the option of a State-sanctioned marriage.

But believe it or not, some people do. I remember asking someone about it at the time "what do you think about removing the state from marriage" and she was very adamant about her love for the State and being recognised by the state/government/Premier/Queen was very important to her. I don't get it either.

When I went to the city the other day, I saw a couple having wedding photos on the steps of Parliament. Believe it or not, you can also book a wedding ceremony to be done at the Marriage Registry Office itself, and apparently this is a very popular option. So, they are out there.

I will never understand the statism - I only love the people of Australia, but at the end of the day, some people see it as some kind of blessing of their marriage instead of, or in addition to, their deity - and these rights were hard fought for in 2017. Just because we generally don't agree with statism, that should not give us a right to try to deny rights to those who do.

Result

 * Lapsed at Congress 2023
 * Does not proceed

= Constitutional Amendment Proposals =