Pirate Congress 2019/Minutes/Log

This is Alex Jago's raw log of the IRC chat for Congress 2019. Please note that all times are in UTC+8:00, that local time was UTC+9:30.

08:14 <@alexjago> Summary of tech setup: this channel is relayed by Rhythm to an equivalent over on Discord 08:14 <@alexjago> there will, at some point, be a YouTube livestream when people cease accidentallying the camera 08:14 * jedb still hates Discord as a matter of general principle 08:18 < Rhythm>  going live we should have video now 08:18 < Rhythm> \o 08:18 < Rhythm>  hi twisty 08:18 < Rhythm> I'll keep an eye on the feed when I can this weekend 08:19 < Rhythm> between farm stuff ... etc 08:22 < Rhythm> are there any position nominations yet? 08:23 <@alexjago> probably not 08:23 < Rhythm>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAsSMNNDfNA 08:23 Title: Pirate Party Australia National Congress 2019 Saturday - YouTube (at www.youtube.com) 08:24 <@alexjago> Alright, so we have *very* choppy video 08:25 < Rhythm>  is the audio coming through alright? 08:27 < Rhythm> barely there 08:28 -!- jedb [~jedb@103.254.153.113] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 08:28 the audio is fine 08:29 < Rhythm>  we just lowered stream bitrate so video should be smoother now 08:30 confirm, video is smooth now 08:30 yes, a lot smoother 08:30 -!- jedb [~jedb@123.208.26.165] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 08:31 -!- jedb [~jedb@123.208.26.165] has joined #ppau-congress 08:33 < Rhythm> Overlay not quite there yet 08:33 [Users #ppau-congress] 08:33 [@alexjago] [+Nick           ] [ ec0            ] [ JohnJ[m]        ] [ Rhythm    ] [ twisty] 08:33 [@ChanServ] [ alexj[m]       ] [ EmilySievers[m]] [ JRQ[m]          ] [ Rundll[m] ] 08:33 [@Fletcher] [ AndrewDPirate[m]] [ jedb          ] [ mandrke[m]      ] [ SimonG[m] ] 08:33 [@Rundll ] [ annit[m]        ] [ jesse_h[m]     ] [ MarkG11[m]      ] [ stbernard ] 08:33 [+MarkG  ] [ dan-            ] [ jl91569        ] [ ppau_congress[m]] [ StuartR[m]] 08:33 -!- Irssi: #ppau-congress: Total of 26 nicks [4 ops, 0 halfops, 2 voices, 20 normal] 08:36 < Rhythm>  @alexjago would you like to present a secretary's report? 08:36 < Rhythm>  we can setup a skype feed during morning tea 08:37 < Rhythm> I've got a pretty bad cough 08:37 < Rhythm> I have a report 08:37 < Rhythm>  would you like to nominate someone else to read it? 08:38 <@alexjago> I don't mind who 08:39 < Rhythm>  https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2019/Agenda 08:39 Title: Pirate Congress 2019/Agenda - Pirate Party Australia Wiki (at pirateparty.org.au) 08:39 audio is a bit faint, speak closer to the mic? 08:41 <@alexjago> also please note that the YT livestream is about 30sec behind 08:42 <@alexjago> I am the verifier 08:42 <@alexjago> This channel will be set to moderated mode shortly 08:45 < JohnA> Ok here at congress evertyone 08:45 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+m] by alexjago 08:46 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v jedb] by alexjago 08:46 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v ec0] by alexjago 08:46 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v Rhythm] by alexjago 08:47 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v JohnA] by alexjago 08:48 <+Rhythm> o/ 08:49 <+MarkG> LIvestream seems to have hit a snag 08:49 <+Rhythm>  yep we've just noticed that 08:50 <@alexjago> If people want to bring something up via Discord I will notice it 08:50 <+jedb> audio still faint, also now some reverb from the mic at the front 08:50 <@alexjago> and Discord and IRC are relayed into each other 08:50 -!- alexjago changed the topic of #ppau-congress to: Annual National Congress 2019 :: July 27 :: https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2019 :: /msg alexjago to verify identity 08:52 <+Rhythm>  Current item: reading out congress standing orders https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/National_Congress_Standing_Orders 08:53 <@alexjago> Policy Motions: https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2019/Motions 08:53 -!- beedemocracy[m] [mausmatrix@gateway/bridge/matrix/diasp.in] has joined #ppau-congress 08:53 <@alexjago> Constitutional Amendment Proposals: https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2019/Constitutional_Amendments 08:54 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v beedemocracy[m]] by alexjago 08:55 -!- JohnA [JohnA@rl27-914-044-067.pa.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client] 08:55 -!- JohnA [JohnA@rl27-914-044-067.pa.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has joined #ppau-congress 08:56 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v JohnA] by alexjago 08:58 <@alexjago> Stream is routinely pausing for anyone else? 08:58 [Users #ppau-congress] 08:58 [@alexjago      ] [+ec0  ] [+Rhythm          ] [ EmilySievers[m]] [ mandrke[m]      ] [ stbernard ] 08:58 [@ChanServ      ] [+jedb ] [ alexj[m]        ] [ jesse_h[m]     ] [ MarkG11[m]      ] [ StuartR[m]] 08:58 [@Fletcher      ] [+JohnA] [ AndrewDPirate[m]] [ jl91569        ] [ ppau_congress[m]] [ twisty    ] 08:58 [@Rundll        ] [+MarkG] [ annit[m]        ] [ JohnJ[m]       ] [ Rundll[m]       ] 08:58 [+beedemocracy[m]] [+Nick ] [ dan-           ] [ JRQ[m]         ] [ SimonG[m]       ] 08:58 -!- Irssi: #ppau-congress: Total of 28 nicks [4 ops, 0 halfops, 7 voices, 17 normal] 08:58 <+jedb> me too 08:58 <+MarkG> Me three 08:59 <+jedb> refreshing fixes it for a bit, but it is prone to happening again 09:02 -!- JohnA [JohnA@rl27-914-044-067.pa.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client] 09:02 -!- JohnA [JohnA@rl27-914-044-067.pa.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has joined #ppau-congress 09:02 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v JohnA] by alexjago 09:03 <@alexjago> Further stream comments: there's an errant 'test' label down the bottom left and a grid 09:03 <+Rhythm>  @alexjago just confirming we are doing a manual vote, and not using the vote motion? 09:04 <@alexjago> I haven't seen a motion bot and I don't intend to macgyver one now 09:05 <@alexjago> MOTION: Adopt Standing orders as read out and as at https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/National_Congress_Standing_Orders 09:05 <+MarkG> ready 09:05 <+jedb> ready 09:05 <+Rhythm>  remote attendees place your votes 09:06 <+jedb> aye 09:06 <@alexjago> "Australia, start voting now!" 09:06 <@alexjago> aye 09:06 <+Rhythm>  voting will close in 2 minutes 09:06 <+Rhythm> aye 09:06 <+JohnA> Suggest you text aye or nay 09:06 <+MarkG> aye 09:08 <+JohnA> Ok declare vote closed and passedsex a 09:08 <@alexjago> Remotes: 4 in favour (jedb, twisty, alexjago, MarkG), none against, none abstain 09:10 <+Rhythm>  procedural motion: adjourn for 10 minutes for morning tea 09:10 <+Rhythm>  start voting now 09:11 <+Rhythm> aye 09:11 <+Rhythm> <Miles> sorry im aware this will be an adjustment to the agenda 09:11 <+jedb> abstain 09:12 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v jesse_h[m]] by alexjago 09:12 <@alexjago> jesse_h[m]: sorry, missed you there 09:12 <+Rhythm> <Miles> i'm not getting any messages from matrix on discord 09:12 <+Rhythm> <Miles> closing vote 09:13 <@alexjago> abstain (on schedule adjust) 09:14 <@alexjago> For the record, Jesse H has voted Aye on both standing orders adoption and on schedule adjust 09:15 -!- JohnA [JohnA@rl27-914-044-067.pa.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client] 09:16 <@alexjago> Schedule adjust vote: Ayes 2 (jesse_h[m] & twisty); Abstain 2 (alexjago & MarkG) 09:18 <+jesse_h[m]> Okay 09:18 [Users #ppau-congress] 09:18 [@alexjago      ] [+ec0       ] [+Rhythm          ] [ EmilySievers[m]] [ MarkG11[m]      ] [ StuartR[m]] 09:18 [@ChanServ      ] [+jedb      ] [ alexj[m]        ] [ jl91569        ] [ ppau_congress[m]] [ twisty    ] 09:18 [@Fletcher      ] [+jesse_h[m]] [ AndrewDPirate[m]] [ JohnJ[m]       ] [ Rundll[m]       ] 09:18 [@Rundll        ] [+MarkG     ] [ annit[m]        ] [ JRQ[m]         ] [ SimonG[m]       ] 09:18 [+beedemocracy[m]] [+Nick     ] [ dan-            ] [ mandrke[m]     ] [ stbernard       ] 09:18 -!- Irssi: #ppau-congress: Total of 27 nicks [4 ops, 0 halfops, 7 voices, 16 normal] 09:18 <+jesse_h[m]> Going AFK for about 90min now though... 09:23 <+Rhythm> <Miles> @alexjago have you made a decision about presenting your secretary's report? 09:23 <+Rhythm> It can be read 09:24 <+Rhythm> <Miles> either nominating someone on the floor to read it out, or presenting via discord audio, or presenting via skype 09:24 <+Rhythm> <Miles> would you like to choose someone? 09:25 <+Rhythm> I would like someone to read it out and I don't mind who 09:26 <+MarkG> When it comes to the Treasurer report, I am happy for someone to read it, but probably not necessary 09:27 <+MarkG> You can just link to it, and if anyone has questions I can answer them 09:28 <@alexjago> hey, it's been more than 10 minutes 09:30 <+Rhythm> <Miles> yep it should be back 09:30 <+Rhythm> <Miles> we're just waiting on stream delay i think 09:30 <+beedemocracy[m]> is it possible to turn up the mics? I have speakers on full volume and the sound is still very faint. 09:30 <+Rhythm> cool cool 09:32 <+MarkG> that new audio sounds good 09:33 <@alexjago> My report: https://discuss.pirateparty.org.au/t/pirate-congress-2019/2798/7?u=alexjago 09:43 <@alexjago> Paul de Abel was our WA #2 09:49 <+MarkG> Comment: The minor party vote was down considerably this time, so a record vote for us is a real testament to our candidates & volunteers. 09:50 <+beedemocracy[m]> comment from YT live stream: "â€‹like wise. I am deaf and even my normal hearing wife says the volume on the mikes is faint." It would really be appreciated if the mics can be turned up a tad. Speaking closer into the mics doesn't help enough. 09:52 <+beedemocracy[m]> applause for Sara 09:52 <+Rhythm> sound better ... but could go up a bit more 09:56 <+jedb> that sounds better 09:58 <+jedb> 2013 09:59 <+beedemocracy[m]> sound is much better thank you 10:01 <+jedb> COMMENT: The question of internet censorship has moved beyond just keeping the government from doing it, as Telstra and other ISPs now block several websites at the DNS level without any legal obligation to do so. 10:08 <@alexjago> stream's had a bit of a delay blowout by the looks 10:10 <@alexjago> last thing I've heard is Miles beginning to talk about AU asylum seeker policy, and judging by the clock it's 5 mins behind 10:10 <+Rhythm> <Miles> We're restarting the stream 10:11 <+jedb> can't hear a thing he's saying 10:11 <+jedb> oh wait, there we go 10:16 <+jedb> COMMENT: the perils of changing the party name can be seen from what happened to the Xenophon group in 2019 - the party name was changed to Centre Alliance and they lost 3.1 percentage points, nearly all his voters 10:20 <@alexjago> Xenophon was built around NX's personal brand 10:20 -!- JohnA [JohnA@rl27-914-044-067.pa.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has joined #ppau-congress 10:21 <+jedb> alexjago: yeah, I know 10:21 <+jedb> alexjago: there's a fair few micro parties in Aust that are built like that 10:23 <@alexjago> We haven't had formally registered state parties 10:24 <+Rhythm> <JohnA> Yep agree 10:24 -!- JohnA [JohnA@rl27-914-044-067.pa.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Client Quit] 10:28 <@alexjago> COMMENT: Steggall supporters needed her to be in a good enough position to actually collect Greens and Labor prefs 10:32 <@alexjago> https://discuss.pirateparty.org.au/t/pirate-congress-2019/2798/7 10:36 <@alexjago> audio getting very soft at end of reading 10:41 <+MarkG> Thanks Sara 10:42 <@alexjago> https://pirateparty.org.au/w/images/6/6f/PPAU_Treasurer_report_Congress_2019.pdf 10:43 <+Rhythm> <Miles> thank you alex 10:54 -!- JohnA [JohnA@rl27-914-044-067.pa.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has joined #ppau-congress 10:55 <@alexjago> COMMENT: This is fairly simple in what the result is, although the wording itself is a bit of a laundry list 10:56 <@alexjago> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2019/Constitutional_Amendments 10:56 <@alexjago> https://pirateparty.org.au/constitution/#part-iii-3.2 10:56 <+Rhythm> <Miles> please start your votes for cap 0\ 10:56 <@alexjago> The REgistered Officer is still a required role 10:57 <+Rhythm> <JohnA> Ok looks like i can comment on discord but only watch on irc. 10:57 <@alexjago> There's the Party Agent (financial reporting and taking money) and the Registered Officer (point of contact) 10:57 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v JohnA] by alexjago 10:58 <+Rhythm> <Miles> any votes from remote attendees on cap0? 10:58 <@alexjago> (there's about a 60 second delay on my stream) 10:58 <+jedb> aye 10:58 <@alexjago> Aye 10:58 <+Rhythm> <Miles> ill give it another minute 10:58 <+MarkG> aye 10:59 <@alexjago> Still 7 floor voters? 11:00 <+Rhythm> <JohnA> Yes that's correct 11:00 <+Rhythm> <Miles> voting on adjourning for lunch 11:00 <+Rhythm> <Miles> please place your votes now 11:01 <@alexjago> COMMENT: the hard part about CAPs is the online quorum 11:01 <+Rhythm> <Miles> ok cease voting on cap0 11:01 <@alexjago> I think Jesse and Twisty are away right now 11:01 -!- JohnA [JohnA@rl27-914-044-067.pa.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 11:02 <+Rhythm> <Miles> PROCEDURAL MOTION: adjourn for 45 minutes lunch 11:02 <+Rhythm> <Miles> begin voting 11:02 <+jedb> aye 11:02 <@alexjago> abstain 11:02 <+MarkG> I have to go AFK for a spell, but I think my policy motions speak for themselves... 11:03 <+MarkG> If we deal with them tomorrow I'll be around again to take questions 11:04 <@alexjago> COMMENT: I only usually count abstains as such if they explicitly say so 11:04 <@alexjago> personally, I'm adjourning for breakfast 11:04 <+Rhythm> <Miles> end voting 11:05 <@alexjago> It's lunch time 11:05 <+jedb> MarkG: there's a typo and I'd say a potential issue with a "fixed" price in PM-4, but otherwise agreed that they speak for themselves 11:07 <+MarkG> The fixed price is our existing policy (ie the change is to other things) - but we can talk about it 11:07 * jedb shrugs 11:07 <+jedb> fair 11:07 <+Rhythm> <JohnA> @Milesb nb9 11:08 <+Rhythm> <Miles> ok we're adjourning for lunch 11:08 <+jedb> MarkG: beginning of paragraph 2, "greenhouse causes" should probably be "greenhouse gases" 11:09 <+MarkG> yep 11:09 <+MarkG> will change 11:17 -!- MarkG [MarkG@PirateParty/AU/Treasurer] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client] 11:39 <+jesse_h[m]> Looks like I didn't miss anything potentially contentious 11:47 -!- MarkG [MarkG@PirateParty/AU/Treasurer] has joined #ppau-congress 11:47 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v MarkG] by ChanServ 11:48 -!- MarkG [MarkG@PirateParty/AU/Treasurer] has quit [Client Quit] 11:48 -!- MarkG [MarkG@vii380-66-277-771.bras1.cbr8.internode.on.net] has joined #ppau-congress 12:07 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v MarkG] by alexjago 12:07 [Users #ppau-congress] 12:07 [@alexjago      ] [+ec0       ] [+Rhythm          ] [ EmilySievers[m]] [ MarkG11[m]      ] [ StuartR[m]] 12:07 [@ChanServ      ] [+jedb      ] [ alexj[m]        ] [ jl91569        ] [ ppau_congress[m]] [ twisty    ] 12:07 [@Fletcher      ] [+jesse_h[m]] [ AndrewDPirate[m]] [ JohnJ[m]       ] [ Rundll[m]       ] 12:07 [@Rundll        ] [+MarkG     ] [ annit[m]        ] [ JRQ[m]         ] [ SimonG[m]       ] 12:07 [+beedemocracy[m]] [+Nick     ] [ dan-            ] [ mandrke[m]     ] [ stbernard       ] 12:07 -!- Irssi: #ppau-congress: Total of 27 nicks [4 ops, 0 halfops, 7 voices, 16 normal] 12:09 <+jedb> jesse_h[m]: I'm predicting the contentious stuff will be PM-1, PM-7, and PM-8A/8B 12:09 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> @Jessie_h we havenâ€™t started the policy debate yet 12:10 <+jesse_h[m]> Yeah no worries 12:11 <+jesse_h[m]> Today is kind of awkward for me because I'm helping someone with volunteering to help run an art exhibition, so I'm not sure if I'll be present for a lot of it :/ 12:21 <+MarkG> For the rest of today I'll have access to this chat, but not the audio. So if you have questions on PM-3 & PM-4 please put them here 12:33 <+Rhythm> <Miles> ok we're back from lunch and we will be resuming shortly 12:37 <+Rhythm> <Miles> we're just working on getting the livestream back up 12:41 <+Rhythm> <Miles> we have now resumed 12:41 <+Rhythm> <Miles> i'm calling for any formal motions from the floor 12:45 <+Rhythm> <Miles> PM-2 domestic violence terminology 12:45 -!- JohnA [JohnA@rl27-914-044-067.pa.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has joined #ppau-congress 12:47 <+Rhythm> aye for pm-2 12:47 <+Rhythm> <Miles> start voting PM-2 12:47 <+Rhythm> aye 12:47 <+jedb> aye 12:48 <+Rhythm> <Miles> stop voting 12:48 <+Rhythm> (aye) 12:49 <+Rhythm> twisty stops tyoing cause ... whiskey good 12:49 -!- JohnA [JohnA@rl27-914-044-067.pa.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Client Quit] 12:50 <+Rhythm> @Miles we have gone from almost no sound to a little bit of sound 12:52 <+Rhythm> <Miles> mixer was very low, i just bumped it up to what it was before the breajk 12:53 <@alexjago> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2019/Motions#PM-4:_Update_energy_policy 12:53 <+jedb> I have a question about it 12:53 <+Rhythm> <JohnA> Ok ask mark may be able to answer. 12:55 <+Rhythm> <Miles> @MarkG we're just discussing your energy policy PM4 12:55 -!- jedb [~jedb@123.208.26.165] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:55 -!- jedb [~jedb@123.208.26.165] has joined #ppau-congress 12:56 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v jedb] by alexjago 12:56 <+jedb> okay, have to type it again, lovely 12:56 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [-m] by alexjago 12:57 <+Rhythm> <Miles> I move to amend "Enact measures to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2030, and to zero net emissions by 2050." so that it reads "Enact measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030, and to zero net emissions by 2050." 12:57 <@alexjago> I've concluded that +m isn't actually needed today 12:57 <@alexjago> jedb had a tech issue 12:57 <+jedb> COMMENT: Would it be better to remove the word "fixed" in the first sentence of the last paragraph mentioning a "fixed price" on carbon? This is because a fixed price would seem to preclude an emissions trading scheme in favour of carbon taxes only. 12:58 <+jedb> apologies for the wait 12:59 <+jedb> that causes/gases was indeed changed in the meantime 12:59 <+MarkG> I agree to Miles amendment without contest (so no vote needed, I think) 12:59 <+MarkG> Jed, I don't think we would have a carbon tax and an ETS 12:59 <+MarkG> and the tax the better model 12:59 <+MarkG> *is 13:00 <+Rhythm> <Miles> any final comments on PM4 energy policy? 13:00 <+Rhythm> <Miles> or amendment motions etc 13:01 <+jedb> both a carbon tax and an ETS are carbon prices; I am generally in favour of ETS instead of tax because it sets a harder upper limit on emissions 13:01 <+MarkG> But it also sets a limit on how much emissions can be reduced 13:02 <+jedb> I think I'll let it go, as it's too minor to be worth fussing about 13:02 <+MarkG> If it says a 15% cut, that's all you ever get - you can't get up to a 20% cut 13:03 <+Rhythm> <Miles> ok begin voting on PM4 energy policy update 13:03 <+MarkG> abstain, since it's my motion 13:04 <@alexjago> aye 13:04 <+jedb> aye 13:04 <+Rhythm> <Miles> ok stop voting 13:05 <+Rhythm> <Miles> move on to PM5 disaster relief 13:05 <+MarkG> did PM2 & PM3 pass? 13:05 <@alexjago> QUESTION: since I looked away for 10 min, confirm we've skipped over PM-3 for now? 13:06 <+jedb> alexjago, MarkG: we've skipped over PM-1 and PM-3 for the moment, but PM-2 passed 13:06 <+MarkG> cool, k 13:06 <+Rhythm> <Miles> yes confirming we're temporarily skipping PMs which may be controversial 13:06 <+Rhythm> <Miles> so we can get the quick ones out of the way 13:06 <@alexjago> Maus/beedemocracy sends her regards - her data isn't keeping up with the livestream 13:09 <+jedb> COMMENT: The part that reads "this fund would be not limited" should probably be "this fund would not be limited" 13:10 <+Rhythm> <Miles> sara accepted jed's suggested, ive edited the policy text on the wiki 13:11 <+Rhythm> <Miles> i also updated mark's energy policy with my amendment 13:11 <+jedb> lol, hard to notice, isn't it? that ordering 13:11 <+Rhythm> Who's speaking into the mic here? 13:11 <+Rhythm> <Miles> dave kennedy had a question for sara about fund allocation 13:12 <+Rhythm> <Miles> sara is now responding 13:12 <+Rhythm> <Miles> yes its currently dave speaking on the livestream 13:12 <+jedb> COMMENT/QUESTION: Where does the figure of $10 billion come from, and would it be better to not specify a solid figure to ensure the policy doesn't age too much? 13:17 <+Rhythm> <Miles> AMENDMENT (david kennedy): Remove the funding limit of $10 billion 13:17 <+Rhythm> <Miles> (discussion continues...) 13:18 <+jedb> I'd like to rephrase it to remove the amount, but I'm not sure what good wording would be... 13:18 <@alexjago> What if we said "multi-billion-dollar"? 13:19 <+jedb> multi-billion sounds like it would work 13:19 <+Rhythm> <Miles> UPDATED AMENDMENT: Rephrase "This fund would not be limited to drought victims and set at 10 billion dollars to deal with multiple scenarios at any given time." with "This fund would not be limited to drought victims and valued at $10 billion to deal with multiple scenarios at any given time." 13:19 <+MarkG> in policymaking you generally start by defining the purpose and then work out the amount needed later 13:20 <+Rhythm> <Miles> UPDATED AMENDMENT: Rephrase "This fund would not be limited to drought victims and set at 10 billion dollars to deal with multiple scenarios at any given time." with "This fund would not be limited to drought victims and valued up to $10 billion to deal with multiple scenarios at any given time." 13:21 <+Rhythm> <Miles> sara is accepting the amendment 13:21 <+Rhythm> <Miles> i have updated the PAM text on the wiki 13:22 <@alexjago> Up to 10B serves the same purpose as multi-billion-dollar in my mind 13:22 <@alexjago> It sets an approximate scale and range 13:22 <+Rhythm> <Miles> ok begin voting 13:23 <@alexjago> Aye 13:23 <+jedb> aye 13:23 <+MarkG> aye 13:25 <+Rhythm> <Miles> stop voting 13:25 <@alexjago> Online: Ayes 3 (alexjago, jedb, MarkG); Abstains 0; Nays 0 13:27 <+Rhythm> <JohnA> MarkG : original ubis objective was to be costed rather than acheive poverty goal 13:27 <+Rhythm> <Miles> discussing PM7 raise the UBI rate 13:28 <+MarkG> I model the change (higher pay + lower tax collection) will cost the federal budget about $100 billion 13:28 <+jedb> COMMENT: The problem with this idea is that the poverty line in Australia specifies relative poverty, and I believe is defined as 50% of the median household income. Relative poverty is poor compared to others, not absolute poverty which is unable to afford basics. 13:28 <@alexjago> COMMENT: Our UBI policy costs about 30Bn more than currently, according to the policy text. We try to make it up elsewhere 13:30 <+jedb> COMMENT: If PM-1 fails and we retain our Job Guarantee policy, it will especially make no sense to raise a UBI to the relative poverty line. 13:30 <+jedb> (Note that I'm saying all this as someone who survives on Newstart.) 13:30 <+MarkG> COMMENT: the NIT model suggests this change would cost the budget $100 billion. I would recommend that absolute poverty should be the priority. 13:32 <@alexjago> The campaign this election was to bump Newstart to about $18K, yeah? 13:32 <+jedb> I'm on board with increasing UBI and Newstart, just not this much. 13:34 <+MarkG> COMMENT: if you set the tax threshold to 48K, you reach the 18K basic income level, and the budget cost shrinks to $67 billion 13:34 <+MarkG> (still expensive, BTW) 13:35 <@alexjago> COMMENT: I'm increasingly in favour of shunting this out to committee 13:36 <+jedb> the relative poverty line being above minimum wage really shows that any UBI or Newstart really shouldn't be that high - for everything to function reasonably it would need to remain somewhere below minimum wage, for obvious reasons 13:36 <+MarkG> COMMENT: an alternative is to invest in social infrastructure (cheaper childcare, social housing, free public transport, etc) 13:38 <@alexjago> SUGGESTION: Mention that the number is in 2019 dollars please 13:39 <+Rhythm> <Miles> PROCEDURAL MOTION (put by miles) to table PM7 until Miles can update the numbers 13:39 <+Rhythm> <Miles> start voting 13:40 <@alexjago> sure. Aye to table and come back 13:41 <+jedb> aye, tabling sounds good 13:41 <+MarkG> aye 13:41 <+Rhythm> <Miles> passed 13:42 <@alexjago> SUGGESTION #2: have you considered fiddling with the rate? This is why I wanted to committee it 13:45 <+Rhythm> <Miles> current motion PM3 13:45 <@alexjago> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/PDC:_updated_environment_policy 13:46 Title: PDC: updated environment policy - Pirate Party Australia Wiki (at pirateparty.org.au) 13:46 <+Rhythm> <Miles> im withdrawing my PM6 13:46 <+Rhythm> <Miles> rationale: mark has already integrated my proposals into pm3 13:46 <+Rhythm> <Miles> current motion: PM3 13:48 <+Rhythm> <Miles> 1 minute before we go to voting 13:49 <@alexjago> COMMENT: is that federal expansion Constitutional? 13:49 <@alexjago> (or question, even) 13:50 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> I withdraw my comment about the Pentium Chip 13:51 <+MarkG> COMMENT: I think external affairs powers would allow it. Even without that, states could agree to grant those powers. The policy platform is a state and federal set 13:51 <@alexjago> MarkG: thanks 13:52 <+Rhythm> <Miles> start voting 13:53 <@alexjago> Aye 13:53 <+jedb> aye 13:53 <+MarkG> abstain (since it's my motion) 13:54 <+Rhythm> <Miles> stop voting 13:54 <@alexjago> Online: 2 Ayes (alexjago, jedb); 1 Abstain (MarkG) 13:54 <+Rhythm> <Miles> current policy motion: PM1 13:54 <+Rhythm> <Miles> "Remove the Job Guarantee Policy and adopt a position statement on Rent-Seeking and other issues" 13:55 <+Rhythm> <Miles> is jesse still here? 13:55 <+jedb> if we're up to PM-1 now... 13:56 In relation to PM-7, is there a proposal to replace the negative income tax with a universal basic income? 13:56 <@alexjago> deadbeat: the NIT provides a basic income 13:56 <+jedb> QUESTION: can we split this up and vote on removing the JG and adopting the anti-rent-seeking statement separately? 13:56 <+MarkG> No, that's not the objective of PM-7 13:56 <@alexjago> jedb: that's what I originally asked John to put 13:57 There is a major difference between a NIT and a UBI. 13:57 <+jedb> deadbeat: they're mathematically equivalent, or rather, a NIT is a way of implementing a UBI 13:59 They're only mathematically equivalent if the UBI that's given to high income earners is recouped through tax. 13:59 <+jedb> deadbeat: which is how you fund an overall UBI scheme, yes 14:01 <@alexjago> There ar specific reasons for doing it as an NIT. We really like the whole "welfare is reverse tax" thing 14:02 * jedb still remembers getting banned from the Bullet Train For Canberra facebook page for asking inconvenient questions 14:02 <+jedb> ah, good times 14:03 <@alexjago> Also. deadbeat are you a member? If so please /msg alexjago and identify yourself 14:06 <+jedb> COMMENT: A universal basic income and a job guarantee have different strengths and complement each other, with a UBI coping poorly with the problem of idleness and a JG coping poorly with the problem of increased automation. This is one of the reasons we have both to begin with. 14:08 <@alexjago> Well said, JedB 14:08 <+jedb> Bullet Train For Canberra was a minor political party, yes, sorry for being off topic for a bit there 14:09 <@alexjago> COMMENT: The consensus we came to over 2017-2018 was (in my words) that "the JG mediates the transition to a post-employment economy" 14:10 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v deadbeat] by alexjago 14:14 <+MarkG> COMMENT: there are compromise positions available - ie that we have a policy to trial a JG in specific areas and gather useful data, as opposed to a blanket commitment 14:15 <@alexjago> QUESTION: What is a JG if not an option for people to lead a meaningful life, with an extra $13K/year over the UBI for choosing a job desired by the local community? 14:15 <+jedb> this is sounding like something to put to committee 14:15 <+MarkG> COMMENT: that approach would respect our commitment to evidence-based policy 14:21 <+jedb> I would be in favour of reworking the Job Guarantee policy to make it easier to explain and make it more clear how it fits in with UBI and other things, but that's not something we can do right this instant 14:21 <+MarkG> COMMENT: I support removing the reference to MMT from this policy, no matter what else happens 14:22 <+jedb> MarkG: I was under the impression that without MMT completely the funding for a JG kinda falls apart 14:23 <@alexjago> COMMENT: JG as designed only pays minimum wage, so it's intended NOT to drive up wages too much per se 14:24 <+jedb> COMMENT: One issue that we haven't gone into too much either with UBI or JG is the old hiring catch-22 of "can't get a job without experience, can't get experience without a job" which is more and more real these days 14:25 <+Rhythm> <Miles> can someone ping jesse? or call jesse? 14:25 <+jedb> jesse_h[m] 14:28 <+jedb> COMMENT: This seeming "contradiction" between having both UBI and JG is why I mentioned earlier with PM-7 that if we retain a JG then the UBI should be more around absolute poverty level 14:29 -!- MarkG [MarkG@vii380-66-277-771.bras1.cbr8.internode.on.net] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client] 14:31 <+Rhythm> <Miles> jesse has messaged me to say he is aware of the debate and will be tuning in shortly 14:33 <+jesse_h[m]> Hi everyone, sorry I'm late 14:33 <+jesse_h[m]> Need to get YouTube up on my other device so I can use Riot simultaneously 14:35 <+Rhythm> <Miles> there is currently a stream delay of 2 minutes 14:35 <@alexjago> COMMENT: The JG on the other hand CAN address poverty problems because it's affordable to pay people more to actually do things 14:41 <+jesse_h[m]> Comment: Yes, PPAU JG is based around the nongovernment sector focusing on job creation and using the citizen juries for oversight. The most important core part of the policy is so long as the federal government is funding paid work for those who want it. 14:42 <+jesse_h[m]> Cheers MilesW for stepping up in my absence 14:47 <+jesse_h[m]> Comment: Regarding our JG policy, we also do focus on trials and focusing the policy on a small scale target on the most needing first, to reduce scope for the supposed bureaucratic problems it is criticised for. We're not talking about giving everyone a job who wants one off the bat. The point is give people who are already marginal/locked out of the labour market I.e. indigenous, people with disabilities, refugees, long term 14:47 <+jesse_h[m]> unemployed, youth unemployment etc. 14:47 <+jesse_h[m]> Scraping an innovative policy from even been trialled seems to go against the grain of our position on evidence based policy. 14:48 <+jesse_h[m]> Comment: The primary beneficiaries of trials would mostly be people in rural QLD, NT and other areas with mass unemployment and disadvantage. 14:50 -!- MarkG [MarkG@124.171.mru.qyy] has joined #ppau-congress 14:50 <+jesse_h[m]> Comment: How can people move forward from poverty traps via UBI if there are no jobs for them? Seems like an elephant in the room 14:51 <+jedb> jesse_h[m]: the only answer there is self-employment 14:51 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> I want to commend John for bringing this up for debate. 14:51 -!- MarkG [MarkG@124.171.mru.qyy] has quit [Client Quit] 14:52 <@alexjago> NOTE: Day 1 is meant to finish in a few minutes 14:52 * jedb checks the schedule 14:52 <+Rhythm> <Satch> agenda says till 6 14:52 <+jedb> alexjago: originally had it at finishing ~25 minutes ago... 14:53 <@alexjago> huh, yeah 14:53 <+Rhythm> <Miles> 1600 is 24 hour time which means 4pm 14:53 < Mark> Guys, I got a call from the community centre to say that we have breached the lease conditions by staying in the room another group had booked. If this is the case can someone who is there call Mark Fletcher on the after hours number right away 14:53 <+Rhythm> <Satch> ah k 14:54 <+Rhythm> <Miles> PROCEDURAL MOTION (put by Miles): table john's policy motion until tomorrow in order to consider the policy motion 14:54 <+Rhythm> <Miles> discussion 14:55 <@alexjago> Miles: There is no discussion, we've gone over by 30 minutes 14:55 <+Rhythm> <Miles> begin voting 14:55 <@alexjago> Mark: text Miles this 14:55 <@alexjago> AYE 14:55 <+jedb> abstain 14:56 <+Rhythm> <Miles> floor votes: 3 in favour, 2 against, 2 abstain 14:56 <+jesse_h[m]> Against 14:57 <@alexjago> Guys, see Mark's comment. We're in breach of our lease conditions right now. 14:57 <+jesse_h[m]> Oh right 14:57 <+jesse_h[m]> Sorry I didn't notice the context 14:57 <+Rhythm> <Miles> PROCEDURAL MOTION : adjourn congress until tomorrow 14:57 <+jesse_h[m]> Problem is my availability tomorrow 14:58 <+Rhythm> <Miles> 10am 14:58 <+Rhythm> <Miles> begin voting 14:58 <@alexjago> Aye 14:58 <+jesse_h[m]> Aye 14:58 <+jedb> aye 14:58 <+deadbeat> In favour. 14:58 <+Rhythm> <Miles> motion passed 14:59 <+Rhythm> <Satch> Hey folk, minutes are up at https://pad.pirateparty.org.au/p/Congress2019Minutes 14:59 Title: Pirate Party Australia Etherpad (at pad.pirateparty.org.au) 14:59 <+Rhythm> <Satch> Feel free to add anything I've missed or you think needs further detail 15:00 <+Rhythm> Thanks Satch. I've been keeping my own notes. 15:00 <+Rhythm> OK, I'm off to sing in a concert. Play nice. 15:01 <+Rhythm> END DAY ONE 15:01 <+Rhythm> <Satch> see you tomorrow! 15:10 -!- deadbeat [deadbeat@322.304.dsl.syd.iprimus.net.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 15:15 -!- Mark [Mark@124.171.mru.qyy] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client] 15:27 -!- jedb [~jedb@123.208.26.165] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 18:51 <+Rhythm> just wondering, how does our job guarantee policy compare to that of, the Australian Workers Party? http://www.australianworkersparty.org/universal-job-guarantee.html 18:51 Title: Universal Job Guarantee - Australian Workers Party (at www.australianworkersparty.org) 20:18 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> Wanted to thank you guys for being there today. Hope to see you tomorrow! 20:49 maus: our current JG policy is essentially identical to the Aust Workers Party one, from the full employment goal, to the de facto rather than de jure minimum wage, to the focus on local community employment, and even the modern monetary theory 20:50 the main differences is that they have done a better job explaining it in a way that non-economically-minded people will care about, and that they are anti-UBI 21:23 <+jesse_h[m]> > the main differences is that they have done a better job explaining it in a way that non-economically-minded people will care about, and that they are anti-UBI 21:23 <+jesse_h[m]> Happy to accept that criticism. I think it's quite reasonable; the policy was written in a somewhat wonkish language. Arguably the biggest issue is providing a comms guide on how to communicate, explain and promote the policy. I think it's quite reasonable actually when you consider what we're only asking for initially is a trial. So we don't need to resort to defences using "esoteric" MMT economics to advocate for the policy. 21:23 <+jesse_h[m]> Arguably there is enough money that can be taken out of the existing bs draconian workfare and employment schemes that punish people on welfare and subsidise private employers to attempt to hire stuff at below minimum wage, to redirect into decent sized JG trials. 21:25 <+beedemocracy[m]> but if you pay workers minimum wage, companies won't get paid to babysit us... workforthedole 21:25 <+jesse_h[m]> There is nothing to stop us using the explanations the AWP use for the policy for our own policy in advocacy though. But I don't think we can just rip off their stuff for our wiki. The reason I made the original policy o detailed and technical was it was highly contentious when I took it to the congress. And it seems that hasn't changed for some people in the party. 21:26 jesse_h[m]: honestly, I would characterise the existence of this PM as partially a result of the policy being a bit too impenetrable to non-economics people :P 21:26 <+beedemocracy[m]> a friend of mine put awp first on their ballot specificallhy because they have a job guarantee. 21:27 <+beedemocracy[m]> it might get a lot more traction if people understood it better. 21:28 <+jesse_h[m]> > jesse_h: honestly, I would characterise the existence of this PM as partially a result of the policy being a bit too impenetrable to non-economics people :P 21:28 <+jesse_h[m]> That is quite possible. I more than happy to work through with others to try and simplify it if they think it will help. There was one suggestion we have a simple policy and then a more detailed page with in depth explanations from memory. 21:28 <+beedemocracy[m]> yes, that might be good. 21:28 <+jesse_h[m]> > a friend of mine put awp first on their ballot specificallhy because they have a job guarantee. 21:28 <+jesse_h[m]> Yeah... Them and Sustainable Aus are the only other 2 parties with the policy at the moment. Not sure where the greens are at with it currently. I think they might be leaning towards trials as well. 21:29 <+jesse_h[m]> (Note Sustain Aus also advocates for trials) 21:30 beedemocracy[m]: from the notes that I made when deciding on who to vote for in the election, my main objections to AWP were all about their idpol collectivist/racist/sexist tendancies, I otherwise found them quite agreeable 21:31 <+beedemocracy[m]> one phrase in the AWP policy particularly bothers me though. That's the part pathologising as suffering mental illness those who don't want to do paid work. 21:31 <+jesse_h[m]> Yeah 21:31 <+jesse_h[m]> I disagree with that 21:32 <+beedemocracy[m]> sorry jesse with what? 21:33 <+jesse_h[m]> Disagree with the 21:33 <+jesse_h[m]> > one phrase in the AWP policy pathologising as suffering mental illness those who don't want to do paid work. 21:33 <+jesse_h[m]> Seems really appalling to me 21:33 I must've missed that bit when scanning their platform; I don't agree with that bit either 21:35 <+beedemocracy[m]> yea. their assumption is flawed too that large numbers of people would stop working if they could, as it contradicts surveys I've heard about where a large majority indicated that they would condinue working if they had a ubi, (but many more thought others would stop working). 21:39 <+beedemocracy[m]> but my point is, one shouldn't be involuntarily pathologised for refusing to work. 21:40 the suggestion *is* counselling, which is rather mild and points to the mental illness remark being slightly hyperbolic, but yes, agreed 21:51 <+beedemocracy[m]> it's just a tad reminiscent of eugenics in my view, that's why it unsettles me. hard to explain why. i think it's because it attempts to pathologise a certain behaviour that's deemed improper. which is essentially the first step of how eugenicists thought about poor criminals like thieves and the like, only in that case seeking purely genetic causes. 21:55 <+beedemocracy[m]> in light of how poorly people with mental health issues or those lumped in as such have historically been treated, one should be extremely careful about labelling a group or demographic mentally ill. Ok, midnight rant done. 21:56 <+beedemocracy[m]> jedb: agreed it's hyperbolic and they probably mean well, but still: *cringe* --- Day changed Sun Jul 28 2019 07:21 <+Rhythm> <Miles> I don't know what's happening or where i am 07:25 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> Lol 07:27 too much rum? 07:27 <+Rhythm> Nominations are up in full for Sara (everything) and myself (Secretariat) and twisty has also put in a stub nomination 07:28 <+Rhythm> @everyone else, you have one hour 07:29 -!- alexjago changed the topic of #ppau-congress to: Annual National Congress 2019 :: July 27-28 :: https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2019 :: /msg alexjago to verify identity 07:38 I would seriously consider nominating but, as with previous years, I am too busy being broke/unemployed and trying to avoid being broke/unemployed 07:42 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v jedb] by alexjago 07:43 <@alexjago> I have to say I am loving all the bridges we have going now 07:44 <@alexjago> Discord, Matrix, IRC - however people want to connect, we can all hear each other 07:44 <@alexjago> hashtag postive thoughts 07:45 <+jedb> alexjago: btw, the topic might be updated to 2019, but ChanServ still says the 2017 emergency congress topic upon joining 07:49 <@alexjago> jedb: yeah, I don't know how to fix that 07:52 <@alexjago> Or more accurately, not being channel owner I can't fix it, and Fletcher is AFK this weekend 07:53 <+Rhythm> <BrandonS> @alexjago Nomination sent. 07:57 <+Rhythm> @BrandonS thanks 08:04 <+Rhythm> <Miles> @jedb please do consider a junior role, possibly dep sec, it is a good way to dip your feet in 08:06 <+jedb> Miles, I think you underestimate how much income issues dominate my life right now 08:07 <+Rhythm> <Miles> Me too. I'm unemployed and almost couldn't afford to fly to Congress 08:08 <+jedb> I don't think this is the time to play who-has-the-shittier-income-situation, so you're just going to have to take my word for it 08:09 <+jedb> (I'd totally win though :P) 08:10 <+Rhythm> <Miles> It's not a good feeling :( 08:10 <+Rhythm> <Miles> Thank you for remote attending though 08:12 <+Rhythm> <Miles> We will likely delay the start of congress as is traditional 08:21 <+Rhythm> 10 minutes before nominations are officially due 08:21 <+Rhythm> @Miles could you at least put a stub in? 08:21 <+Rhythm> (I assume you want to run again) 08:23 <+Rhythm> <Miles> Yes 08:23 <+Rhythm> <Miles> Oh, is that thomas gaul? @ThomasG 08:25 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> o/ @ThomasG Willkommen 08:29 <+Rhythm> <Miles> We're here 08:35 <+Rhythm> How goes the setup? 08:37 <@alexjago> **We take this delay as an opportunity to request people put themselves forward for National Council. Doesn't happen without you!** 08:38 <+jedb> I also greatly encourage people put themselves forward, since I'm not in a position to do so myself 08:44 <+Rhythm> <Miles> @ThomasG can you type here now? 08:44 <+Rhythm> <ThomasG> Now I can! 08:44 <+Rhythm> <ThomasG> Thank you! 08:44 <+Rhythm> <ThomasG> And best regards to the national congress from PPDE! 08:45 <+Rhythm> <Miles> thank you 08:45 <+Rhythm> <Miles> the livestream will be recorded on youtube for later viewing 08:45 <+Rhythm> <ThomasG> I know, tried to follow up the Saturday. But as you know: sound issues ðŸ˜ƒ 08:46 <+Rhythm> <Miles> hehe 08:49 <+Rhythm> <ThomasG> btw, some other account had been online in between. That sound was much better than the official one. As to say, my volume is up but I do not get word. 08:50 <+Rhythm> <Stone> the PPAU bot's set to low on the voice activation. mandrke was nice and loud, but needed to mute the stream bot to remove the feedback loop. 08:52 <+Rhythm> <ThomasG> I see 08:52 <+Rhythm> And we're live 08:52 <+Rhythm> <Stone> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8fdftYm1_E pin this. 08:52 Title: Pirate Party Australia National Congress 2019 Sunday - YouTube (at www.youtube.com) 08:53 <+Rhythm> <ThomasG> sound on yt is much better today 08:54 <+Rhythm> <Miles> @alexjago are you able to upload a candidate image for me to the wiki? 08:55 <+Rhythm> Yeah 08:55 * jedb stares at the pirate party banner in the background and makes mental notes 08:55 <+Rhythm> A much better PC is powering the streaming! 08:55 <+Rhythm> <Miles> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/580190396110340107/604839265465270272/IMG20190728102158.jpg 08:55 <+Rhythm> YouTube sound is very faint 08:55 <+Rhythm> <ThomasG> Sound went down again. 08:55 <+jedb> youtube sound *was* good, then suddenly faded massively 08:56 <+Rhythm> <Stone> muuuuch better. 08:57 <+Rhythm> <Stone> @Miles your audio is still low. 08:57 <+Rhythm> <Miles> im a foot away from my mike 08:57 <+Rhythm> @Miles here's your file 08:57 <+Rhythm> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/File:Miles_Whiticker_2019.jpg 08:57 Title: File:Miles Whiticker 2019.jpg - Pirate Party Australia Wiki (at pirateparty.org.au) 08:57 * jedb gives a thumbs up 08:57 <+Rhythm> <ThomasG> Some mic needs to be eaten ðŸ˜ƒ 08:58 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> he's testing it now 08:58 <+Rhythm> <Satch> lick it gently, like an ice cream 08:58 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> lol 09:00 < MarkG> we can hear John well but others are a bit faint 09:00 <+jedb> the "testing 1 2 3" was at ideal volume 09:00 <+Rhythm> <ThomasG> +1 09:01 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> jeeeeezus! 09:01 <+jedb> lol 09:02 <+Rhythm> <ThomasG> But for one thing I like all pirate parties all over the world. As it goes to tech stuff and esp. sound and streaming, the probs are all very much alike ðŸ˜ƒ 09:02 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> @ThomasG lol 09:03 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> @ThomasG at least you can post in the main channel now 09:03 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v MarkG] by alexjago 09:03 <+Rhythm> <ThomasG> Yepp! Thanks to Miles 09:03 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> cool 09:04 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> all sounding good online? 09:04 <+Rhythm> <ThomasG> atm I get it. 09:04 <+Rhythm> John is nice and loud 09:04 <+Rhythm> Miles a little quieter 09:04 <+Rhythm> <Satch> thanks 09:05 <+Rhythm> We're rapidly approaching 2 hours behind schedule, so if we could kick off soon that would be good 09:07 <+Rhythm> Two hours behind including policy motions overrun 09:07 <+jedb> and we haven't even gotten to what should be the most controversial policy motions yet 09:08 <+Rhythm> There 09:09 <+Rhythm> Stream delay I think is less than 60 sec 09:11 <+Rhythm> "I guess it must be the calm before the storm" for anyone tracking delay, plus typing time 09:11 <+Rhythm> do you want seconds on the clock 09:11 <+Rhythm> I mean if you want to 09:12 <+Rhythm> Can we just start? 09:13 <+Rhythm> <Satch> hopefully.. 09:13 <+Rhythm> <ThomasG> As for zero, first mention ever was documented in India. Just saying. Even the greeks did hot use this number. 09:15 <+Rhythm> @Miles you'll need to change the percentage in Rationale as well, and explain how $18K is the poverty line now 09:15 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> can you hear Miles okay? 09:16 <+Rhythm> Miles is a little quiet but audible 09:16 -!- mode/#ppau-congress [+v deadbeat] by alexjago 09:16 <+jedb> the section "such that it is set at the poverty line as determined by the Australian Council of Social Service" should be removed, since as per previous discussion yesterday the ACSS povery line is not suitable for this policy 09:17 <+jedb> relative poverty vs absolute poverty and such 09:17 <@alexjago> So we're taking standing orders as continuing 09:19 <+Rhythm> <Miles> correct alex 09:20 <+MarkG> COMMENT: it would cost about $80 billion a year. For that, you could get lot of social infrastructure that targets poverty more precisely. 09:21 <+jedb> COMMENT: as per the rationale and per the original amount, doesn't the ACSS specify the poverty line at around $22500? changing it down to $18750 means we are already departing from the ACSS recommendations 09:23 <+jedb> wait, what? no, minimum wage (specified for fulltime work as it usually is) is much higher than that 09:24 <+MarkG> COMMENT: I think we would need words on the budget impact in the policy. $80b would basically break the budget 09:25 <+jedb> AMENDMENT PROPOSAL: remove the section "such that it is set at the poverty line as determined by the Australian Council of Social Service" 09:26 <+jedb> yes, that is exactly what I am saying 09:27 <@alexjago> AMENDMENT PROPOSAL: State that dollar figures are in 2019 dollars 09:27 <+Rhythm> <Miles> start voting 09:28 <@alexjago> Wait, sorry. It's already there 09:28 <+jedb> aye 09:28 <@alexjago> Aye (PM-7) 09:29 <+MarkG> abstain 09:29 <+Rhythm> <Miles> stop voting 09:30 <@alexjago> PROCEDURAL MOTION: that we proceed to a vote on PM-1 after not more than an hour of debate 09:30 <+jedb> lol 09:30 <+Rhythm> <Miles> ok start voting 09:31 <+jedb> aye on that procedural motion 09:31 <@alexjago> Aye (proc motion) 09:31 <+MarkG> aye on the proc motion 09:31 <+jedb> "hope for the best, plan for the worst" 09:31 <+Rhythm> <Miles> stop voting 09:32 <@alexjago> On PM-1: I think it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 09:33 <+Rhythm> <Miles> PROCEDURAL MOTION (put by sara): vote in no more than 25 minutes 09:33 <+jedb> lol aye to that too 09:33 <@alexjago> Aye to Sara's 09:33 <+Rhythm> <Miles> start voting 09:34 <+Rhythm> note: a church service is running in the room next to us 09:34 <@alexjago> Aye to 25 min 09:36 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> Dances 09:37 <+Rhythm> <Miles> AMENDMENT (put by Miles): vote separately on John's position statement and John's Policy Motion 09:37 <@alexjago> PM-1 COMMENT: I believe that PM-1 is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. John specifically mentioned the policy length and the MMT funding. 09:38 <+jedb> aye on that amendment 09:38 <+Rhythm> <Miles> start voting 09:38 <+jedb> whoops 09:38 <@alexjago> PROC COMMENT: I'm not sure if we can split them 09:39 <+jedb> aye on that amendment 09:39 <+Rhythm> <Miles> floor: 4 against, 2 in favour, 1 abstention 09:39 <@alexjago> (but I would like to, so I am in favour of splitting) - AYE 09:39 <+deadbeat> In favour of amendment. 09:39 <+MarkG> nay, keep it together 09:40 <+jesse_h[m]> Aye 09:40 <+jesse_h[m]> Although not sure how it's going to look split. Probably would need to be done over in a split form anyway 09:41 <+MarkG> COMMENT: why not change the JG policy to remove the MMT words and call for a trial (not full adoption) of the JG? is that a workable compromise? 09:41 <+Rhythm> <Miles> remote votes: 2 in favour, 1 against 09:41 <+Rhythm> <Miles> final vote count: 5 against, 4 in favour, 1 abstention 09:42 <+jedb> I hope so too 09:42 <+jedb> MarkG: how would a job guarantee even work without MMT? 09:42 <+jedb> the funding, I mean 09:43 <+MarkG> COMMENT: if it can't work without MMT then it probably can't work 09:44 <+MarkG> COMMENT: the absolute best case scenario for MMT is that might come and go with different governments 09:44 <+MarkG> COMMENT: no policy should depend on fringe economic ideas for its viability 09:45 <+jedb> the inconsistent arguments are probably just because there are several people making the arguments 09:46 <+MarkG> That was mainly a response to Jed ^ 09:46 <+Rhythm> <ThomasG> Hope you do not mind me leaving for tonight. Some sleep I just need ðŸ˜ƒ Wish you all  a very successful National Congress today. Bet you will rock! And I am eager to know the outcoming. On either the political results and the internal elections being up front. Hope to see you soon again! 09:46 <+Rhythm> <ThomasG> Just: bye to all of you! 09:47 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> Thank you @ThomasG for stopping bye! o/ 09:47 <+Rhythm> <ThomasG> Any time again! 09:47 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> â¤ 09:48 <@alexjago> jesse_h[m]: in your opinion does the JG absolutely rely on MMT? 09:49 <+MarkG> MMT goes beyond just the obvious point that governments pay for stuff with debt. It includes the idea that currency can be issued to manage debt. It includes an alternative theory of inflation. Other stuff too 09:50 <+jedb> we have rules against filibustering? neat 09:51 <+Rhythm> <Satch> ðŸ˜‰ 09:51 <@alexjago> jedb: rules against filibustering? in MY PPAU? It's more likely than you think! 09:52 <+jedb> alexjago: as long as it's only about speeches that are for obstructing process, rather than speeches that need to be said 09:54 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> Go Kate. 09:55 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> Love the fact that Kate works in that area and we got to hear from her on this. 09:57 <@alexjago> OK, it's just about time 09:57 <+Rhythm> <Miles> a couple more minutes 09:58 <+jedb> COMMENT: the newly adopted UBI as per PM-7 should definitely be enough to live on, even maintaining a car, except perhaps if you're trying to live in Sydney (that place is expensive, so still not sure there) 09:59 <+MarkG> COMMENT: wouldn't a JG displace volunteerism? It would become more tightly controlled, paid labour 10:00 <+Rhythm> <Miles> start voting on PM1 10:01 <+Rhythm> <Miles> floor: 4 opposed, 2 in favour, 1 abstention 10:01 <+jedb> nay 10:01 <+MarkG> aye 10:01 <@alexjago> nay 10:01 <+deadbeat> Against. 10:03 <+Rhythm> <Miles> stop voting 10:03 <+Rhythm> <Miles> remote: 1 naye, 1 aye 10:03 <@alexjago> COMMENT: Secretariat thanks Bryn for the clock 10:03 <@alexjago> Online: 1 in favour (MarkG), 3 against (alexjago, jedb, deadbeat) 10:04 <+Rhythm> you are welcome 10:04 <+Rhythm> <Miles> final tally: 7 nay, 3 aye, 1 abstention 10:04 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> Thank you John for bringing the best debate during congress 10:05 <+jedb> people picking at issues is how things get done around here 10:06 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> @jedb hear hear 10:06 <+jedb> I for one am in favour of rewording and simplifying the JG policy, just against PM-1 as it was presented here 10:06 <@alexjago> +1 Jed 10:06 <+Rhythm> <Miles> FORMAL MOTION (put by Miles): Adopt John's rent seeking position statement from PM1 10:06 <@alexjago> PROCEDURAL NOTE: NC nominations auto closed when Congress business starts 10:07 <@alexjago> PROCEDURAL NOTE: Floor motions come once policies are done 10:07 <+jedb> don't we have to do the PM-8 madness first? 10:08 <+jedb> lmao 10:08 <+Rhythm> <Miles> John is raising a vote of no confidence in me 10:09 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> Can we just move forward? 10:09 <+Rhythm> <Miles> place your votes now 10:09 <+Rhythm> <Miles> hang on 10:10 <+Rhythm> <Miles> placing an aye vote means i withdraw my floor motion 10:10 <+jedb> abstain on the vote of no confidence 10:10 <@alexjago> Abstain (no conf) 10:10 <+MarkG> nay 10:11 <+deadbeat> No. 10:11 <+Rhythm> <Stone> nay! haha.. 10:11 <+Rhythm> <Miles> stop voting 10:12 <@alexjago> The Abstains have it :p 10:12 <+jedb> @Miles you've got some old memes there, but they check out 10:12 <+Rhythm> <Miles> voting on the floor motion to adopt John's position statement 10:12 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> well done to the supreme commander 10:14 <@alexjago> This is the Position Statement 10:14 <@alexjago> 10:14 <@alexjago> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Rent_Seeking_and_Bureaucracy_Position_Statement 10:14 <@alexjago> 10:14 Title: Rent Seeking and Bureaucracy Position Statement - Pirate Party Australia Wiki (at pirateparty.org.au) 10:16 <+Rhythm> facepalms 10:16 <@alexjago> Please put PM-8. 8B extends 8A. 10:17 <@alexjago> As for voting on them: Congress as a whole can pass one or neither but not both. However, I believe we have the technology to put both options to the general online vote next week. 10:18 <+jedb> alexjago: I would hope that it won't get as far as a general vote 10:22 <@alexjago> Can we get to the vote? 10:23 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> @alexjago seconded 10:23 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> you got your hour... 10:24 <@alexjago> I would favour putting it to committee 10:24 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> Shakka... when the walls fell 10:25 <@alexjago> PROC NOTE: Congress floor gates motions 10:25 <@alexjago> Clarification: I mean to task the PDC with polishing it this year 10:26 <+Rhythm> <Miles> AMENDED FLOOR MOTION: send john's rent seeking position statement to a working group to report back to NC after congress 10:26 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra 10:27 <+Rhythm> <Miles> start voting 10:27 <+jedb> aye 10:27 <@alexjago> Aye 10:27 <+Rhythm> <Miles> floor: 6 in favour, 1 abstention 10:28 <+Rhythm> <Miles> corrected floor count: 6 ayes and 1 nay 10:28 <+jedb> it doesn't count as taking your bat and ball and going home unless you ragequit the party 10:29 <+Rhythm> <Miles> remote: 2 ayes 10:29 <@alexjago> Now the real question is does this floor motion need to go to a full vote? 10:30 <@alexjago> I am determining that it doesn't 10:30 <@alexjago> https://pirateparty.org.au/constitution/#part-iii-6.4(4) 10:30 Title: Pirate Party Australia Party Constitution (at pirateparty.org.au) 10:31 <@alexjago> If we actually passed the PS as is it needed to go out, but we're just referring it to a working group 10:32 <+jedb> I have... words... to say about this 10:32 <+jedb> many words 10:32 <+MarkG> the guardian is a culture war shitrag 10:33 <+jedb> I dispute our ability to vote on 8B at all, but we will get to that 10:33 <@alexjago> PROCEDURAL NOTE: We have the technology to put both variants to the online vote 10:34 <+jedb> we literally cannot adopt the opposite position 10:35 <+MarkG> COMMENT: I accept the judgement of those in the firing line who want to strike the 18C line out for tactical reasons. But we can't possibly adopt the pro-censorship motionâ€“ opposition to censorship is a formative principle of _every Pirate Party in the world_. 10:35 <+MarkG> COMMENT: Pirates with a pro-censorship policy would be like Pirates wanting longer copyright terms or more snooping. This 8B motion astounded me. 10:35 <+jedb> I apologise in advance for the incoming approx 400 words (not including excerpts) but they do have to be said - civil liberties are serious business 10:35 <+jedb> COMMENT: 1) Votes for PPAU in 2019 were up by a decent margin from 2016, both in absolute and percentage terms, disregarding WA as we did not run candidates there in 2016. There were several remarks about this in the reports yesterday. This shows a complete lack of evidence that our policy to repeal 18C "hit us hard" at the ballot box. 10:36 <+jedb> COMMENT: 2) The Guardian article in question did not focus on PPAU, nor did it focus on our policy regarding 18C. We were part of a lengthly list of micro parties, and the policy was part of a list of policy points about PPAU. To ensure everyone is on the same page about this, I request that the small section about PPAU from that article be read out: 10:36 <+jedb> https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/10/australian-election-2019-full-list-of-micro-parties-standing-in-the-senate 10:36 Title: Australian election 2019: how to avoid voting for a terrible micro party in the Senate | Australia news | The Guardian (at www.theguardian.com) 10:36 <+jedb> COMMENT: 3) Our stance on 18C is already clarified, and is deeply intertwined with the preamble of the existing freedom of speech policy. That policy as it stands does a better job of defending itself than I can do on short notice, so I request that paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the existing freedom of speech policy be read, noting that 18C is very much a hate speech law: 10:36 <+jedb> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Platform#Freedom_of_speech 10:36 Title: Platform - Pirate Party Australia Wiki (at pirateparty.org.au) 10:36 <+jedb> COMMENT: 4) The United States, a country that has a constitutionally protected right to free speech, has consistently ruled via their Supreme Court that hate speech laws are not valid under that constitutionally protected right. If we succeed with our bill of rights policy, which includes a similar right to free speech, then we can expect a similar result and 18C will be declared unconstitutional. 10:37 <+jedb> COMMENT: 5) The PPAU constitution states in the opening sentence that the Pirate Party strives to protect and expand civil liberties. As freedom of speech is a civil liberty and PM-8B is advocating an authoritarian restriction on allowed speech, it would seem to not be something that we can currently consider. If party members want to proceed with such a motion I would suggest we amend our constitution first. 10:37 <+jedb> COMMENT: 6) In summary, the policy to repeal 18C is already clarified, there is no evidence of any negative effect at the ballot box, and it was not the focus of the Guardian article, meaning the entire rationale given for these policy motions is invalid. Adopting either of these policy motions would also mean gutting our freedom of speech policy, defanging our bill of rights policy, and in the case of PM-8B probably going against our party constitution. 10:37 <+jedb> also is it just me, or did the audio part of the stream cut out? 10:38 <@alexjago> It cut when we flicked to the article 10:38 <+deadbeat> Audio gone. 10:38 <+jedb> noooo, audio whhhhy 10:39 <+Rhythm> <Satch> audio is back 10:41 <+Rhythm> sorry about the audio 10:41 <+Rhythm> fixed 10:43 <@alexjago> COMMENT: I agree unreservedly with Jed's comments #3, 4 and 5 10:45 <@alexjago> PROC NOTE: Can we have Sara finish, then the Guardian, then Jed's comments from #3 10:46 <+Rhythm> @SaraJoyce the last I heard of your initial speech was "Casual Racism starts at home" 10:47 <+Rhythm> <Miles> PROCEDURAL MOTION (put by sara joyce): Table PM8 until this afternoon 10:47 <+Rhythm> <Miles> AMENDED PROCEDURAL MOTION (put by sara joyce): Table PM8 until completion of other announced business this afternoon 10:48 <+jedb> it's going to partially come back up when dealing with nominations, due to the party constitution issue at the very least 10:49 <+Rhythm> <Miles> start voting 10:49 <+jedb> nay 10:50 <@alexjago> Aye (we actually should've done nominations in the morning and those need to get done) 10:51 <+MarkG> aye 10:51 <+Rhythm> <Miles> floor: 6 in favour, 1 abstention 10:51 <+Rhythm> <Miles> remote: 1 against, 2 in favour 10:51 <+Rhythm> <Miles> motion passes 10:53 <+Rhythm> <Miles> PROCEDURAL MOTION (put by miles): break for a 30 minute returning at 1300 local time (instead of 60 minute lunch) 10:53 <@alexjago> COMMENT: we started half an hour late, seems reasomable. We don't have any setup time, yeah? 10:53 <+Rhythm> <Miles> start voting 10:53 <+jedb> aye 10:53 <+Rhythm> <Satch> no alex, same room this avo 10:54 <+Rhythm> <Miles> floor: 7 in favour (unanimous) 10:54 <+jedb> @Miles the party constitution issue is strictly about 8B 10:54 <@alexjago> Aye, then 10:55 <@alexjago> Jed's argument is contained in comment #5 11:05 <+jedb> MarkG: I remember that there *was* a policy motion to extend term lengths on our copyright policy put forward back in... 2013? the last time there was a congress in Canberra, anyway 11:05 <+jedb> it was soundly defeated 11:32 <+Rhythm> <Miles> resuming shortl;y 11:35 <+jedb> stream audio seems good 11:36 <+jedb> alphabetical order of first or last name? 11:38 <+Rhythm> If you accept a position then that withdraws you automatically from the others 11:42 <@alexjago> PROC NOTE: we can amend standing orders to take nominations from the floor if anyone really wants to 11:42 <+Rhythm> <Miles> PROCEDURAL MOTION (put by miles): Amend the standing orders to allow nominations from the floor 11:44 <+Rhythm> <Miles> start voting 11:44 <@alexjago> john turns it up to 11 11:44 <+jedb> aye 11:44 <@alexjago> aye 11:45 <@alexjago> PROC NOTE: Candidates can withdraw at any time 11:45 <+Rhythm> <Miles> stop voting 11:46 <+jedb> the Aust population is somewhere around 50% christian of various denominations, so religious allegories are highly likely to be understood :P 11:47 <+Rhythm> <JohnA> :) 11:47 <+Rhythm> @BrandonS are you around 11:48 <+Rhythm> <Miles> reminder that remote attendees can formally address congress in any combination of their choice of text, audio and/or video 11:49 <+Rhythm> I might attempt an audio address 11:50 <@alexjago> Will the President reveal what he's eating? 11:50 <@alexjago> (like, if I can't go audio then text is fine) 11:51 <+Rhythm> for, audio, Discord, or skype? 11:52 <+Rhythm> @alexjago 11:52 <+Rhythm> Discord 11:52 <+Rhythm> In Congress Sound? 11:53 <@alexjago> I wouldn't describe DRC as low stress but it is rare that anything ever makes it to DRC 11:54 <@alexjago> COMMENT: The DRC slot up for re-election is Fletcher's 11:55 <@alexjago> COMMENT: Brandon is effectively AFK this afternoon. Anyone with questions for him is advised to ask them now and I will forward them 11:57 <+Rhythm> <JohnA> Suimin prawn and chicken 11:59 <@alexjago> QUESTION for Miles: Do you intend to take a public facing role in any other activist orgs this term? 12:02 <@alexjago> APPLAUSE for Clive 12:06 <@alexjago> COMMENT: Sara IS nominated for Prez 12:06 <+deadbeat> The running title in the You Tube feed has an unfortunate misspelling in Miles' surname. 12:07 <+Rhythm> again, my falt 12:07 <+Rhythm> fault 12:11 <+jedb> QUESTION for Sara: You have stated that you agree with the Pirate Party platform and ideals. How does that match up with PM-8, a policy motion put forward by you which goes against significant portions of our policies on free speech, a bill of rights, and also in the case of PM-8B against the party constitution? 12:13 <+jedb> oh, I can see we are going to debate this later, yes 12:16 <@alexjago> Are we happy to not talk about PM-8 right now? 12:16 <@alexjago> (now that we've mentioned it) 12:16 <+Rhythm> <Miles> within the context of sara's nomination only please 12:16 <+jedb> alexjago: I thought it was a relevant question, but I'm not going to continue with it further at this time 12:18 <@alexjago> jedb: yep 12:19 <+Rhythm> <JohnA> I am ready for the discussion later. 12:20 <@alexjago> Brandon questions go to brandon.selic@pirateparty.org.au 12:20 <@alexjago> Birgitta was 2014 12:21 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> Politicians and diapers have one thing in common: they should both be changed regularly... and for the same reason 12:22 <@alexjago> Y 12:23 <@alexjago> jedb: please confirm if you're getting audio of me 12:23 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> talk 12:23 <@alexjago> recognition phrase: 123 I am a potato 12:23 <+jedb> alexjago: getting the audio, but it is a bit echoy 12:24 <+Rhythm> <Stone> audio is good. 12:24 <@alexjago> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2019/Nominations#Secretary 12:24 Title: Pirate Congress 2019/Nominations - Pirate Party Australia Wiki (at pirateparty.org.au) 12:32 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> The Nothing is coming! 12:33 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> that was great thank you Alex! 12:34 <+Rhythm> <Satch> The Nothing! 12:34 <+Rhythm> <Satch> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/580190396110340107/604894314744643584/11421596136_b0413979eb.png 12:35 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> Alex are you prepared to take on a more Public facing role within your current role? 12:35 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> what's the next step? 12:37 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> agreed 12:38 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> i second that national congress is a great way to meet pirates 12:39 <+Rhythm> <Miles> Please send any questions or inquiries about Brandon's nomination to his party email brandon.selic@pirateparty.org.au 12:40 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> i support his nom 12:41 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> sci-fi ftw 12:42 <+Rhythm> <Miles> @twisty 12:42 <+Rhythm> OK, so Twisty didn't really fill out the nomination 12:43 <+Rhythm> Twisty has been SocMed since 2016 12:43 <+Rhythm> He stepped up to NC this year when we had loads of vacancies 12:43 <+jedb> "David Read is a nominee who has nominated" *cue applause* 12:48 <+jedb> ...electronic voting literally cannot be done with proper oversight and a proper audit trail, that's the problem with it... 12:49 <+jedb> (oversight and audit trail to the extent necessary for a government election, I mean) 12:49 <+Rhythm> and what a target for hackers! 12:50 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> What are some of the policies  you are not happy with or are on the fence on which you mentioned? 12:53 <@alexjago> Mel Thomas 12:53 <@alexjago> It's the brisbane Mafia! 12:57 <@alexjago> PROC NOTE: Party vote gets any contested positions 12:58 <@alexjago> If Sara chooses to take the Treasury then nothing need be contested 13:01 <@alexjago> OK, so if Sara is rejecting Treasury then we still have 3 people going for 4 positions across Prez and Sec and their deputies 13:01 <+MarkG> Treasury is a simple job, and I will show whoever gets it the ropes 13:01 <@alexjago> PM-8 is at the end 13:02 <@alexjago> We also need to pick the next location 13:04 <+Rhythm> @SaraJoyce your positional preference is Dep Prez, Treasurer, Prez if I recall you correctly 13:04 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> correct 13:05 <+Rhythm> So if @Miles withdraws from Dep Prez we can sort this out 13:05 <+Rhythm> <Stone> a threat to educate. 13:07 * jedb tilts his head consideringly 13:07 <+jedb> I wouldn't mind criticising the Chinese... :P 13:09 <+Rhythm> <Satch> My (now deceased) Grandmother used to say "I just can't trust them with those slanty little eyes". Racism was the norm back in her day.. 13:09 <@alexjago> COMMENT on 18C: As the one who runs the FB page, I got 18C blowback quite a bit, perhaps a plurality 13:09 <+jedb> @Satch I don't mean it like that, more with foreign ownership and China vs Taiwan issues 13:09 <+Rhythm> <Satch> I know jedb, just a sideline remark ðŸ˜‰ 13:10 <+MarkG> 18C is one of those issues few people care about, but those few are highly organised and zealous 13:11 <+MarkG> Don't mention the war 13:13 <+jedb> COMMENT: In regards to China and Taiwan, there was an interesting article posted on irc a while back about how Taiwan deals with Chinese propaganda without using censorship, that we could perhaps learn from. The problem however was it essentially boiled down to fast counter-propaganda... 13:14 <@alexjago> I think the Japanese might also have something to do with China's 20th Century issues... 13:14 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> if you can find that and post that would be great 13:15 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> hi! 13:15 <+jedb> @SaraJoyce I believe it was https://cpj.org/blog/2019/05/qa-taiwans-digital-minister-on-combatting-disinfor.php 13:15 <+Rhythm> sound just dropped? 13:15 <+Rhythm> No steam audio 13:16 Title: Q&A: Taiwan's digital minister on combatting disinformation without censorship - Committee to Protect Journalists (at cpj.org) 13:16 <+jedb> no audio nooooo 13:17 <+Rhythm> <JohnA> MarkG - fair point 13:17 <+jedb> audio is back now 13:17 <+jedb> and gone again... 13:17 <+jedb> and back again!? 13:18 <+Rhythm> <Satch> have you tried turning it off and back on again? 13:18 <+Rhythm> <Satch> sound up? 13:18 <+Rhythm> sorry 13:19 <+Rhythm> John's mic is very on 13:21 <+Rhythm> can't hear any sound 13:21 <+Rhythm> Mic near Miles is also very on 13:22 <+Rhythm> Wherever Miles is. Possibly a computer mic? 13:22 <+Rhythm> i'm not even hearing background noises. nothing. 13:22 <+jedb> audio did drop out for a second for me but is definitely working at the moment... 13:23 <+Rhythm> Squeaky door is squeaky 13:24 <+Rhythm> Do we not have a mixing desk? Just drop the room mics! 13:24 <+MarkG> you guys should mute your mics 13:24 <+Rhythm> <Miles> we have muted the floor mikes, the audio feed is from bryn's headset 13:24 <+Rhythm> <Miles> we've just mixed up the audio sources, so the only source of anna's audio right now is bryn's mike 13:24 <+Rhythm> Ahh k 13:25 <+Rhythm> no sound on discord stream. 13:26 <+jedb> @maus use the youtube stream...? 13:26 * jedb wonders why it would be different for discord 13:26 <+Rhythm> bryn is very audible 13:29 <+jedb> and there goes the audio 13:30 <+Rhythm> audio lost at :59 13:32 <+Rhythm> hopefuly fixed? 13:33 <+Rhythm> not yet, giving it a minute for delay catchup 13:34 <+Rhythm> <Miles> god we're such fucking hopelessly attracted to tinkering 13:34 <+Rhythm> Static now 13:34 <+Rhythm> <Miles> imagine a party of hackers who cant stop tinkering 13:34 <+Rhythm> <Satch> lol, it's a good look 13:35 <+Rhythm> <Miles> we just lost audio on the floor 13:35 <+Rhythm> <Miles> audio on the floor is back 13:37 <+Rhythm> now? 13:38 <+Rhythm> just noise 13:38 <+Rhythm> mic testing noises 13:38 <+Rhythm> can hear Miles 13:39 <+Rhythm> Still had static 13:39 <+Rhythm> now lost everything briefly, and again 13:40 <+Rhythm> Still with the static 13:41 <+Rhythm> <Miles> @alexjago can you give guest IRC perms to annashadywind to join #ppau-congress 13:42 <+jedb> due to stream issues I didn't understand most of that, so I can't really formulate any questions 13:42 <+Rhythm> @Miles she should be able to just join 13:42 <+Rhythm> sorry anna for the audio troubles 13:43 <@alexjago> A note: we're meant to close in half an hour per the agenda. We have to pick the next location and finish off PM-8 13:43 <+jedb> alexjago: agreed 13:45 <+Rhythm> <Miles> no stream audio (?) 13:45 <+jedb> @Miles stream audio is working, at least as of this moment 13:46 <+Rhythm> <Miles> https://ecovolutiontheparty.wordpress.com/ 13:46 <+jedb> COMMENT: Degrowth ideas would be more likely to find traction in higher population countries 13:47 Title: Ecovolution â€“ The Ecocentrist economic model (at ecovolutiontheparty.wordpress.com) 13:51 <+Rhythm> <Miles> Anna is happy to take inquiries and comments at her email ecovolution.theparty@gmail.com 13:52 <+Rhythm> <Miles> FLOOR MOTION (put by Sara Joyce) National Congress 2020 to be in Sydney 13:52 <+Rhythm> <Miles> final comments, counter proposals, questions? 13:52 <+Rhythm> <Miles> start voting 13:52 <+jedb> aye 13:53 <+Rhythm> Aye 13:54 <+Rhythm> <Miles> stop voting 13:55 <+Rhythm> Sydney 2020 13:56 <@alexjago> OK, PM-8. I suggest that Sara deliver her speech again in full, and then Jed's 6 points be read in full 13:56 <+Rhythm> <Miles> FLOOR MOTION (put by Miles): I propose we formally issue a statement of support for Hong Kong and Uyghur peoples in expressing their democratic rights 13:56 <+Rhythm> <Miles> (discussion) 13:57 <+Rhythm> <Miles> start voting 13:57 <+MarkG> aye 13:58 <+jedb> abstain 13:58 <@alexjago> Aye 13:59 <+Rhythm> <Miles> stop voting 13:59 <@alexjago> COMMENT: if we go down under a flood of Chinese 50 cent shenanigans then that's honestly worse news for the CCP 14:00 <@alexjago> PROCEDURAL SUGGESTION: Sara to give her speech, then read out Jed's 6 point response 14:02 <+jedb> the bill of rights is already in policy, just a few sections down from the freedom of speech section 14:03 <+Rhythm> <Miles> sorry jed i was just scrolling back to grab your comments from before 14:03 <+jedb> it's fine 14:03 <+Rhythm> <Miles> we'll read them out after kate and then take responses to you and kate 14:04 <+jedb> christ this speech is full of racist bullshit 14:05 <@alexjago> jedb: please don't trigger people by calling them racist. I know you mean it sincerely 14:05 <+jedb> yeah, probably shouldn't read that 14:05 <+Rhythm> <Miles> reminder that remote attendees are invited to address congress via audio or video 14:06 <+MarkG> COMMENT: it's not enough to say racism is bad. Evidence is needed that censorship is an effective response to racism. Otherwise it fails the test of evidence based policy 14:06 <+jedb> no, not that quote, I was just talking about the section on Pirate Party 14:08 <+Rhythm> comment: freedom of speech vs discrimination is a false dichotomy. marginalised people who face oppression need as much or more freedom of speech than us privileged folks. would we condemn eg a west papuan activist voicing frustration at indonesians using colourfull language when and on the basis that indonesians are offended? I sure hope not. 14:09 <+Rhythm> comment: 18c could potentially criminalise such oppressed groups for the manner in which individual members of such groups express themselves. hatespeech laws often help to serve those already in positions of power. 14:10 <+Rhythm> <Miles> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Platform#Freedom_of_speech 14:10 <+Rhythm> <Miles> https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/10/australian-election-2019-full-list-of-micro-parties-standing-in-the-senate 14:10 Title: Platform - Pirate Party Australia Wiki (at pirateparty.org.au) 14:11 Title: Australian election 2019: how to avoid voting for a terrible micro party in the Senate | Australia news | The Guardian (at www.theguardian.com) 14:11 <+jedb> the section from the Guardian that I was after, which all this seems to have originated from was: 14:11 <+jedb> "Advocates for freedom of information, civil and digital liberties, privacy and anonymity and government transparency. Wants to â€œbring an end to state censorship of opinionsâ€, repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and backs a universal basic income." 14:12 <+jedb> that's what they had to say about PPAU 14:12 <+Rhythm> Huh, they added the UBI bit later 14:12 <+MarkG> COMMENT: authoritarian regimes always point to western hate speech laws to deflect criticism. Hate speech laws create cover for abusing minorities all over the world 14:13 <+jedb> COMMENT: when doing research for who to vote for in the election, out of the 41 parties running for Senate in NSW, I only found *6* that supported freedom of speech, including PPAU - this is concerning and if anything it suggests we should be doubling down on promoting free speech 14:14 <+jedb> (the list, if anyone is interested, was Pirate Party, Sustainable Australia, Liberal Democrats, Rise Up Australia, Australian Conservatives, and Conservative Nationals) 14:16 <+MarkG> COMMENT: how would giving censorship powers to the Trump Administration (for eg) help to stem shock jocks? Do you think whoever uses those powers will share your views about what should be allowed to disallowed? 14:16 <+MarkG> *allowed or disallowed (sorry) 14:17 <+jedb> COMMENT: We need to remember that freedom of speech means freedom of speech for speech you disagree with. There is no other. 14:21 <+jedb> COMMENT: Sustainable Australia is very much left libertarian, so no, we are not the only one. 14:21 <+MarkG> COMMENT: the term 'hate speech' was invited by Stalin's regime as a label for its critics. 14:24 <+jedb> COMMENT: If we get into the morass of terrorism and civil unrest in the USA we will never hear the end of it, so probably shouldn't go there at the moment. 14:25 <+Rhythm> i think kate makes a good point 14:25 <@alexjago> 18C leaving out is 8A 14:26 <+jedb> COMMENT: If we leave out 18C the criticism will just transfer to something else. For as long as we truly support free speech, we will be criticised. We need to own it. 14:27 <+MarkG> COMMENT: if people in the firing line feel strongly that the 18C line should be struck from the policy, I respect their decision. But the censorship supporting motion (8B) is out of line 14:27 <+jedb> I reiterate that 8B is not in line with the party constitution and not something that we can vote on at the time at all. 14:30 <+jesse_h[m]> So the proposition of removing 18C repeal from the platform predicated on some sort implicit opposition to 18C from principles, that intends to misled potential supporters what we support? 14:30 <@alexjago> jesse_h[m]: it's basically to fuck with ctrl-f ers 14:30 <+jesse_h[m]> Yeah I suspected as much... 14:30 <@alexjago> PROC COMMENT: it is Congress Floor's responsibility to prevent bad motions from going to the party 14:31 <+jedb> Going against our own rules and principles is not something we should do, if we can at all help it. 14:31 <@alexjago> COMMENT: I believe that we should not put 8B to the party 14:32 <+jesse_h[m]> Just curious, does Sustain Aus explicitly mention 18C when supporting free speech? 14:32 <@alexjago> Floor == those voting today 14:32 <@alexjago> sorry 14:32 <+jedb> jesse_h[m]: they do not; they mention support of free speech explicitly and do not carve out any exceptions for hate speech or the like 14:33 <+jesse_h[m]> So we can't just do the same? 14:33 <+jedb> jesse_h[m]: I suspect we may be almost unique at mentioning 18C, regardless of support or opposition, but I would have to go back and check 14:33 <@alexjago> COMMENT: I agree with Jed and the previous policy writers that if 18C contravenes freedom of speech, which is a civil liberty, then we should not be explicitly for it 14:33 <+jedb> jesse_h[m]: why can't we do the same? because it goes against the rest of our policies and values on the subject 14:34 <+jesse_h[m]> <jedb "jesse_h: I suspect we may be alm"> I'm assuming 8A puts us in line with the Sustain Aus position 14:34 <+Rhythm> ppau has submitted multiple responses to senate inquiries on 18c. I suggest party members read these before the wider-party vote on 8A 14:35 <+Rhythm> 8A and 8B sorry 14:35 <+Rhythm> <Miles> PROCEDURAL MOTION (put by Miles): Allow policy amendment motions considered by Congress as unconstitutional to be adopted into the policy platform 14:35 <+jesse_h[m]> <Rhythm " ppau has submitted multip"> These are on the wiki yeah? I'll consider not voting today so I can read those before voting online 14:35 <+Rhythm> <Miles> discussion ^ ? 14:36 <+Rhythm> jesse_h yes they are. 14:36 <@alexjago> jesse_h[m]: everyone votes later, thosewho show up get two cracks ;) 14:36 <+jesse_h[m]> Lol 14:36 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> Ha! 14:36 <@alexjago> COMMENT: Yes John, the subtle distinction is between 8A and 8B 14:38 <+jedb> COMMENT: As a final comment, I would like to direct everyone in the Congress room to look at the Pirate Party banner next to the table at the front. The second thing mentioned is free speech. It is very much core to the party. 14:38 <+Rhythm> <Miles> withdraw my procedural motion 14:39 <+Rhythm> <Miles> PM8-B reserve 18C repeal policy 14:39 <+deadbeat> If unconstitutional policy is adopted is it possible to knock it on the head by other party bodies later (due to its unconstitutionality)? 14:39 <+Rhythm> <Miles> start voting 14:39 <+Rhythm> <Miles> floor: 5 opposed, 1 in favour 14:40 <+jedb> nay 14:40 <+deadbeat> Oppose. 14:40 <+MarkG> Nay 14:40 <@alexjago> Oppose. 14:40 <+Rhythm> <Miles> stop voting 14:40 <+Rhythm> <Miles> 4 opposed remote 14:40 <+Rhythm> <Miles> PM-8A: Remove 18C-repeal policy 14:41 <+Rhythm> <Miles> start voting 14:41 <+jedb> nay 14:41 <@alexjago> deadbeat: I would argue that the NC too would have a duty 14:41 <+Rhythm> aye 14:41 <+Rhythm> <Miles> floor: 2 in favour, 4 against 14:41 <@alexjago> Aye. I'm OK with putting this to the party. 14:41 <+MarkG> nay 14:42 <+deadbeat> Oppose. 14:43 <+Rhythm> <Miles> remote: 1 aye 3 nay 14:44 <+Rhythm> 2 aye 14:44 <@alexjago> 2 remote Ayes, Maus and I 14:44 <@alexjago> But still, that's a Nay overall 14:44 <+Rhythm> <Miles> correction remote: 2 ayes, 3 nays 14:45 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> Thank you guys. 14:45 <+Rhythm> COMMENT: Sara: Thank you for putting this (even though I argued against it) 14:45 * jedb notes down "anti-idpol position statement" on his to-do list for putting to next congress and heavily underlines it 14:46 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> @alexjago no worries at all 14:46 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> #democracy 14:46 <+jedb> @SaraJoyce I may heatedly argue against it, but I appreciate the opportunity for party members to reacquaint themselves with our policy and reaffirm their decisions about it 14:47 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> Thanks @Jedb ! 14:48 <+MarkG> Thanks everyone, for an entertaining Congress, and good luck to the NC and other volunteers this year 14:48 <+MarkG> I will nominate for the DRC spot 14:48 <@alexjago> MarkG: thanks 14:49 <+Rhythm> <Miles> congress 2019 closed 14:50 <+MarkG> Hooray! 14:50 <+jedb> dat snipe tho 14:50 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> Thank you all!!! Great Congress! 14:53 <+Rhythm> thanks everyone 14:57 -!- deadbeat [deadbeat@322.304.dsl.syd.iprimus.net.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 15:05 -!- MarkG [MarkG@124.171.mru.qyy] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client] 15:30 <+Rhythm> @SaraJoyce Thanks for responding to my comment. I was at first a tad confused about your response to my comment. Perhaps I was misunderstood: I wasn't comparing west papuan oppression to australian racist commentary, rather i was trying to imagine a scenario like how a west papuan activist publishing an article in australia could be penalised for it by s18c for insulting indonesian government officials. 15:35 <+Rhythm> <SaraJoyce> @maus I think as a form of political protest itâ€™s not racist to condemn a country for oppression of a minority and this again is where a Bill of Rights would cover this. The 1st Amendment in the United States would cover this. I appreciated the opportunity to talk about West Papua anyway as I have been a staunch supporter of their cause. Iâ€™ll also note that no one has been held to account in this way under 18c 15:50 <+Rhythm> Thanks Sara. The example i was giving though is of an oppressed person making explicitely offensive and insulting remarks about individuals oppressing them, not using respectable language to politely condemn them in the manner of a UN official, but rather the opposite. I think 18c could easily be interpreted in a way that makes this an offense. I don't think it's likely to happen, the section being so rarely used as it is (it's scope being 15:50 <+Rhythm> so narrow), but my concern fits in with general concerns I have around hate speech laws and how I've personally witnessed them play out in Europe to undermine activists.