Pirate Congress 2023/Motions

Official Party Document The veracity of this document is ensured by the National Council and editing of this page is limited to members of the National Council.

Formal Motions

FM-1: Application to join Pirate Parties International

This proposal is currently being voted on. Please note that until and unless the proposal is ratified, it is not yet endorsed by the party.

Put by: Jay Stephens, on behalf of the Foreign & International Relations Committee

Motion

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

Rationale

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

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

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

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

Result

• Passed on the floor of Congress 2023
• Ratified by online member vote: 46 Aye, 2 Nay, 4 Abstain

Policy and Platform Amendment Motions

PM-1 Economics policy update

Put by: milspec

Motion

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

Rationale

Please refer to the author notes within the policy text.

Result

• Carried on the Congress floor with several amendments
• Ratified by online member vote: 42 Aye, 5 Nay, 5 Abstain

PM-2 Marriage policy update

Put by: Simon Gnieslaw

Motion

Adopt the proposed text found here.

Rationale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result

• Lapsed at Congress 2023
• Does not proceed

Constitutional Amendment Proposals

This proposal is currently being voted on. Please note that until and unless the proposal is ratified, it is not yet endorsed by the party.

Constitutional Amendment Proposals must be submitted to [email protected] before 9:00am AEST on Saturday 24th June 2023.

Proposals to change the Constitution are Special Resolutions under the NSW Associations Incorporation Act 2009.

---

CAP-1: National Council Quorum Reduction

Put by: Alex Jago

Motion

In article 3.1.1, omit "five (5)" and substitute "three (3)"'.

Rationale

With the Party no longer a completely independent organisation the National Council does not need to operate on as large a scale. Further, the N.C. has had persistent casual vacancies over the last few years. This proposal does not reduce the maximum size of the N.C. but does permit it to operate with fewer members.

Result

• Carried on the floor of Congress 2023
• Ratified by online member vote: 48 Aye, 3 Nay, 1 Abstain

CAP-2: Membership criteria change - other parties

Put by: Simon Gnieslaw

Motion

Replace article 4.1(1)(c) with "Is not currently a member of any other registered or unregistered political party in Australia which goes against the Principles and Objects of the Party, and with the exception of Fusion, does not use your membership for AEC registration purposes.".

Rationale

1. Other Registered Political Party - Technically Fusion is another Registered Political Party and is possible to also sign with Fusion directly, so this could technically be a breach?
2. Other Unregistered Political Party - Technically Fusion could become unregistered
3. Unrelated Unregistered Political Parties - There are other organisations out there (eg: Non-Human Party, PIBCI) that have no real prospects of ever applying for registration and are broadly compatible with our values. Or even Fusion related (Being a member of multiple branch parties).
4. Perhaps there are parties out there which only operate within a certain state without any crossover to Pirate activities.
5. The Pirates are not considering direct registrations any time soon anyway, so I don't see the harm in dropping this requirement, as AEC registration processes will likely be fully done through the Fusion system anyway,

Results

• Carried on the floor of Congress 2023
• Ratified by online member vote: 47 Aye, 1 Nay, 4 Abstain

CAP-3: Membership criteria change - enrolment

Put by: Simon Gnieslaw

Motion

Repeal article 4.1(e), adjusting article 4.2(d) to end the sentence, and instead insert a new article 4.2.1(2): "Full Members are required to be registered on the Australian electoral roll."

Rationale

Rationale: PR and International Membership categories are impossible if it is a base Pirate Party requirement of all members to the on the Australian electoral roll.

Supporter memberships can be opened up to those who are under 16 and therefore cannot enroll yet. There have been instances of passionate young people 13+ taking an interest in us. As long as we are not targeting children and contact is only incidental, we don't need working with children checks.

The "cannot be granted due to restrictions" clause (1) applies to what the party is allowed to do with them as far as their privileges go, not their eligibility as a member and (2) the requirement to be on the AEC roll is a Pirate requirement, not Legislation.

Results

• Carried on the floor of Congress 2023
• Ratified by online member vote: 50 Aye, 0 Nay, 2 Abstain