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.)
Policy and Platform Amendment Motions
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.
Results
- Carried on Congress floor with 13 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstentions
- Carried online with 67 Ayes, 3 Nay, 9 Abstentions
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.
Results
- Carried on Congress floor with 13 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstentions
- Carried online with 76 Ayes, 0 Nay, 3 Abstentions
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.
Results
- Carried on Congress floor with 15 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstentions
- Carried online with 75 Ayes, 1 Nay, 3 Abstentions
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.
Note: this motion was modified by a motion at the 2020 Congress. It is presented in the modified form.
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.
Results
- Carried (amended) on Congress floor with 15 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstentions
- Carried online with 67 Ayes, 2 Nay, 10 Abstentions
PM-5: Set the proposed Universal Basic Income at the poverty rate
Was PM-7 at the 2019 Congress
Note that this motion has been further amended on the floor of the 2020 Congress.
Put by: Miles Whiticker
Link to Discussion at Congress 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAsSMNNDfNA&t=14172
Motion
This section would be modified to set the threshold at $64,000 so with the rate remaining at 37.5% all other figures in this section would need to be updated accordingly. The table below provides the new figures.
| Income before tax | Tax threshold | Gap between income & threshold | Tax rate | Change in income | Income after tax | Effective tax rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| $0 | $64,000 | -$64,000 | 37.5% | +$24,000 | $24,000 | 0% |
| $30,000 | $64,000 | -$34,000 | 37.5% | +$12,750 | $42,750 | 0% |
| $64,000 | $64,000 | $0 | 37.5% | nil | $64,000 | 0% |
| $84,000 | $64,000 | $20,000 | 37.5% | -$7,500 | $76,500 | 8.83% |
| $128,000 | $64,000 | $64,000 | 37.5% | -$24,000 | $104,000 | 18.75% |
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.
Results
- Carried (amended) on Congress floor with 15 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Abstention
- Carried online with 72 Ayes, 1 Nay, 6 Abstentions
New Motions for 2020
Formal Motions
None.
Policy and Platform Amendment Motions
PM-6A: Remove the Job Guarantee policy
Note: this policy is mutually exclusive with PM-6B. Congress has passed PM-6B and PM-6A will NOT be voted on by the membership.
Put by: John August
Motion
Remove the Job Guarantee policy, except for the Commonwealth Employment Service parts.
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.
Results
- Rejected on Congress floor with 5 Ayes, 8 Nays, 1 Abstentions
PM-6B: Remove the Job Guarantee Policy and replace it with a section endorsing the limited experimentation of novel economic ideas
Note: this policy is mutually exclusive with PM-6B. Congress has passed PM-6B and it will be voted on by the membership.
Put by: John August
Motion
Remove the Job Guarantee Policy (except for the Commonwealth Employment Service parts, which are to be broken out into their own section) 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 grapple 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 distributed digital currencies. While digital currencies carry 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.
Results
- Carried on Congress floor with 11 Ayes, 2 Nays, 2 Abstentions
- Carried online with 64 Ayes, 5 Nay, 10 Abstentions
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.
Position Statements
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.
Results
- Carried on Congress floor with 15 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstentions
- Carried online with 65 Ayes, 2 Nay, 12 Abstentions
PS-2: Free Speech, Hate Speech and Section 18C
Put by: Miles Whiticker
Motion
Adopt the Free Speech, Hate Speech and Section 18C position statement, detailed here.
Rationale
Party Member Liam Pomfret and others have noted that the "Repeal 18C" section of our policy has lost us members and turned away other prospective members. Having run for election, myself and other previous electoral candidates can attest to this effect. It's often misunderstood, or seen as a problem with our platform. This position statement clarifies our intent to amend 18C rather than remove it, while acknowledging the value we place on free speech.
Results
- Carried on Congress floor with 8 Ayes, 2 Nays, 3 Abstentions
- Carried online with 60 Ayes, 6 Nay, 13 Abstentions
Constitutional Amendment Proposals
Constitutional Amendment Proposals must be submitted to [email protected] before 9:00am AEST on Saturday 27 June 2020.
Proposals to change the Constitution are Special Resolutions under the NSW Associations Incorporation Act 2009.
Proposals from 2019
CAP-0 was passed by the floor of Congress last year, 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.)
CAP-0: Clean up the position descriptions in section 3.2
Put by: Alex Jago
Motion
Replace the contents of sub-sub-sub-sections 3.2.1.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3.1, 3.2.4.1 and 3.2.5.1 with the contents of 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.2, 3.2.3.2, 3.2.4.2 and 3.2.5.2 respectively, then remove the now-duplicate 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.2, 3.2.3.2, 3.2.4.2 and 3.2.5.2.
Repeal sub-sub-section 3.2.7 "Registered Officer" in its entirety.
Replace 3.2.8(1) with "Three (3) Councillors will be appointed by election at the Annual National Congress to the National Council." and repeal 3.2.8(2).
Rationale
Note to avoid ambiguity: all sections referred to in the motion are in Part III, section 3.2 "Positions".
In 2017 at the Emergency National Congress, we inserted a number of updated position-description clauses (as well as replacing the Registered Officer with a third Councillor). That all took effect at the middle of 2018 as intended. Since the old clauses are no longer operational, it is now time to remove them altogether.
Link to Discussion at Congress 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAsSMNNDfNA&t=8465
Results
- Carried on Congress floor with 13 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstentions
- Carried online with 74 Ayes, 1 Nay, 4 Abstentions
New Motions for 2020
CAP-1: Timing of online voting
Put by: Bryn Busai and Alex Jago
Motion
Amend Article 6.4(2) to read as follows:
(a) The online voting period must not be less than seven (7) days and not more than fourteen (14) days.
(b) Voting arising from a meeting must commence no more than seven (7) days after the close of that meeting.
(c) Results must be announced no more than seven (7) days after voting closes.
Rationale
To establish and tighten the timeline around online voting.
Results
- Carried on Congress floor with __ Ayes, _ Nays, _ Abstentions
- Carried online with 69 Ayes, 2 Nay, 8 Abstentions
CAP-2: Procedures in the event of the National Council dropping below quorum
Put by: Bryn Busai and Alex Jago
Motion
Add the following as Article 3.1(5):
If the total number of Councillors is reduced below the minimum quorum, the National Council may act for the purpose of filling its vacancies in accordance with Article 10.1(8), but for no other purpose.
Add the following as Article 12(13):
If the National Council is reduced to zero members, the Dispute Resolution Committee, as the senior remaining Party body, must act to establish a new National Council in accordance with Article 10.1(8).
Rationale
As the Dispute Resolution Committee is the only party office which lasts more than one year consecutively this gives a continuity of power.
If the NC gets down to say 4 people they can and should fill NC vacancies. We only need the DRC to step in if the NC is fully wiped out - and they can run an election.
Results
- Carried on Congress floor with 14 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Abstentions
- Carried online with 69 Ayes, 1 Nay, 9 Abstentions