Pirate Congress 2020/Motions

= Motions carried over from Congress 2019 = PM-1 through to PM-5 were passed by the floor of Congress 2019 but due to the email voting system not working, did not get voted on by the party-at-large. (All motions that would have been put to the email voting system last year will simply be put to the floor again this year by Alex Jago or their initial proponent. Any motions that failed on the floor last year are welcome to be put again by their proponents.)

PM-1: Domestic Violence terminology
Was PM-2 at the 2019 Congress

Initially Put by: Sara Joyce Any questions will go to Alex Jago

Link to Discussion at Congress 2019: https://youtube.com/watch?v=KAsSMNNDfNA&t=11689

Motion
Replace mentions of "Domestic Violence" in the policy document with "Domestic Abuse".

Rationale
This is to keep in line with current terminology so that we are not excluding victims who have suffered non physical abuse.

PM-2: Update environment policy
Was PM-3 at, and incorporates PM-6 from, the 2019 Congress

Put by: Mark Gibbons

Link to Discussion at Congress 2019: PM-3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAsSMNNDfNA&t=15171

Motion
Update the existing existing environment policy using the policy text available here.

Rationale
The climate change and environment policies were not especially well received last election. The main reason is that the policies are five years old and the priorities of environmental groups have shifted. Also, recent study has demonstrated that the global environmental faces very rapid deterioration in the coming decades unless policy-makers step up in their ambition. A more ambitious policy from PPAU may aid public debate on the issue.

PM-3: Update energy policy
Was PM-4 at the 2019 Congress

Put by: Mark Gibbons

Link to Discussion at Congress 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAsSMNNDfNA&t=12025

Motion
Update the existing existing energy policy using the policy text available here.

Rationale
The climate change and environment policies were not especially well received last election. The main reason is that the policies are five years old and the priorities of environmental groups have shifted. Also, recent study has demonstrated that the global environmental faces very rapid deterioration in the coming decades unless policy-makers step up in their ambition. A more ambitious policy from PPAU may aid public debate on the issue.

PM-4: Disaster Relief Fund (Climate Change)
Was PM-5 at the 2019 Congress

Initially Put by: Sara Joyce

Any Questions will go to Alex Jago

Link to Discussion at Congress 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAsSMNNDfNA&t=12961

Note: while also modifying the environmental policies, this does not appear to conflict with any other proposal.

Motion
Add the following subsubsection to the "Land management and ecology" subsection of the platform.

Disaster Relief Fund

Create a disaster relief fund to support those affected by climate change, particularly farmers, and to enable a timely response to any nationally declared disaster by the Prime Minister. This fund would not be limited to drought victims and valued up to 10 billion dollars to deal with multiple scenarios at any given time.

PM-5: Set the proposed Universal Basic Income at the poverty rate
Was PM-7 at the 2019 Congress

Put by: Miles Whiticker

Link to Discussion at Congress 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAsSMNNDfNA&t=14172

Motion
Change (i.e. raise) the level of the basic income retaining the 37.5% tax rate. In 2019 dollars this would set the "threshold income" to $50,000/year and the basic income to $18,750 year.

Rationale
The current policy calls for a UBI of $15,000 annually, set to be similar to Newstart. This is only 66% of the poverty line as determined by the Australian Council of Social Service.

= New Motions for 2020 =

Formal Motions
None as yet

PM-6A: Remove the Job Guarantee policy
Put by: John August

Motion
Remove the Job Guarantee policy in its entirety.

Rationale
The Job Guarantee Policy has not attracted any significant sympathetic responses, especially from Getup who we were hoping would recognise the policy, but have rather continued on their own trajectory. People who saw the merits in one half our policy dismissed us because of the mere presence of the other, that is to say Job Guarantee vs. Universal Basic Income (UBI). The UBI is more in accord with our overall policy position and worth keeping, while further the Job Guarantee policy is harder to explain and relies on esoteric economic approaches, while the UBI can be costed in a relatively straightforward fashion and positioned within a reasonably maintream economic framework, making it easier to explain and justify.

While the Pirate Party is based around the promotion of novel approaches to issues in society and the economy, there is nevertheless a "novelty budget" of novel positions which are worth supporting. The fact remains that there are people in the party who have difficulty motivating themselves to put themselves forward as candidates and otherwise become motivated within the party while the Job Guarantee policy remains. Rather than being an "appendix" to our the rest of our policy, it was adopted in such a large form as to make our whole platform lop-sided and inconsistent. Given this history, and the way many otherwise strongly motivated people feel about the policy, I advocate that it be removed in its entirety to enable a fresh start that might re-motivate people.

PM-6B: Remove the Job Guarantee Policy and replace it with a section endorsing the limited experimentation of novel economic ideas
Put by: John August

Motion
Remove the Job Guarantee Policy and replace it with a section endorsing the limited experimentation of novel economic ideas, as per the following:

Endorsement of experimentation involving novel approaches to economic problems

Unemployment has been a topic of regular debate in Australia since the government abandoned its commitment to full employment in 1974. Pirate Party Australia believes policies around employment should be subject to constant testing and review in light of their profound importance to human well-being. As part of an approach to experimentation, we support trials of Job Guarantee Schemes in specific areas. We also endorse testing and data collection for other novel approaches which attempt to grapples with the growing problems of precarious employment, underemployment and wage suppression in Australia.

Pirate Party Australia also endorses novel economic approaches in other areas, such as Local Exchange Trading Schemes and Bitcoin, with elements of our approach to Bitcoin detailed in our policy on "Distributed digital currencies". While Bitcoin carries risks around Tax Havens and Criminal Money Exchange, it also represents an alternative to monopoly held by financial industries, along with various other benefits as detailed in the above policy. Pirate Party Australia regards an endorsement of the personal freedom to adopt such approaches as a worthwhile end in itself.

Rationale
While the Job Guarantee policy is in itself problematic, the endorsement of experimental approaches without any additional material might a viable thing to adopt.

As part of discussion, it might be viable to jettison or change other elements of this policy; in the context of other endorsement of experimental approaches, however, this reduces the prominence of the policy and is thus a worthwhile thing, apart from the opportunity to introduce mention of other issues into our policy framework.

PS-1: Rent Seeking and Bureaucracy
Put by: John August

Motion
Adopt the Rent-Seeking and Bureaucracy position statement, detailed here.

Rationale
While reviewing our position around UBI, we developed an appreciation for the worth of the CES and the worth of appropriate Government involvement in the economy, with particular regard to rent-seeking, prompting the adoption of this Position Statement. This is particularly apt if the Job Guarantee Policy is removed, as its one partial merit, in my [John's] view, was the recognition of the worth of the CES.