Opinions on Pirate Congress 2015 constitutional amendment proposals

For those unaware, the proposals can be found here on the wiki.

I’m happy enough with CAPs: 1, 4A, 6, 7, 8, 10

I am against the following CAPs: 2, 3, 4B, 12, 13, 14

I am indifferent to: 5, 9, 11

I’ll go through my reasons for the against.


The National Council is quite literally comprised of those persons formally elected, to the exclusion of all others. Composed is a spurious and unnecessary change.


The Party Agent has since at least the last Congress been defined as a responsibility of the Registered Officer, so this proposal doesn’t solve whatever problem you have identified (there is no rationale listed).


I support 4A, mostly because 4B is ambiguous and breaks more than it fixes.


No. Just no. I don’t like it on any level. It’s something one might find in the Liberal Democratic Party constitution, not ours.


This proposal as written isn’t sufficient to be considered a valid motion in my opinion, but I’ve written a formal amendment proposal and it’s on the wiki as “CAP-13 Amendment A”.


I don’t think it’s an appropriate amendment to simply decide that only Full Members are restricted to single party membership, and leave all other membership levels completely outside the scope of those provisions.

I have already discussed the model I would have preferred and my reasoning, and this goes in a direction I do not approve of.

Thanks to David Crafti for proposing these. I’ve gone through and looked at each one, but like Brendan here are the ones I support and oppose:


  • CAP-1
  • CAP-3–4A (with minor amendent)
  • CAP-5–9
  • CAP-10–11 (with minor amendment)
  • CAP-13 (with Amendment A)


  • CAP-2
  • CAP-4B
  • CAP-12
  • CAP-14 (unless substantially amended)


Innocuous change that improves the grammar of the Party Constitution.


Seems unnecessary given the words mean effectively the same thing, and there are other words that could also be used. Without rationale it’s hard to make a firm decision, but I don’t think it would make a difference.


Given that Article confers the responsibilities of Party Agent upon the Registered Officer (a directly elected position), this amendment is unnecessary. It would be better in my opinion to remove the redundant Article 2(4) from the constitution instead, which unnecessarily provides for the appointment of the Party Agent.


I generally support this amendment, subject to some clarification as to what ‘the minimum to achieve a two-thirds majority of those present’ means: does it refer to those present at the previous meeting, or the current meeting?


I agree with Brendan that this is ambiguous and that CAP-4A is preferable.


Improvements to remove ambiguity and codify current convention.


I tentatively support this amendment on the basis of the rationale provided.


Removes ambiguity and codifies current convention. Would recommend making it Article 12(3) and modifying the numbering accordingly.


This amendment seems fine, though I’m not sure if it’s strictly necessary. I would add the sentence to the end of Article 12(5) for neatness.


This seems to skip the gist of the original principle entirely. It is not merely economic competition that is at issue, it is the control of culture that the Pirate Party opposes:

Overbearing and restrictive private monopolies constructed via regimes of antiquated, unfair and unbalanced laws which prevent the free development of culture and ideas are detrimental to financial, economic and cultural outcomes for the citizens of Australia. (Emphasis added).

I’m against the amendment on the basis that it centres it on economic issues rather than the issue of cultural control generally.

CAP-13 and CAP-13 Amendment A

I agree with Brendan that the initial proposal was not detailed enough, but am satisfied with its corresponding Amendment A.


I think this would be better phrased as ‘the National Council may exempt categories of membership they create from certain eligibility requirements’ or a similar phrasing.

I’m not a fan of CAP 12 either. It seems a significant change of premise which could provide a rationale to send party policy far more down the classical liberal path as Brendan intimates. I would think the wording of these statements is not meant to be read by voters, it is meant for members and to guide internal decisions, so it doesn’t matter if it seems complicated, it is in fact a good thing. The proposed wording could be interrpreted to imply blanket support for privatisation, ‘marketisation’ (sorry to use a favourite term of the Left) and deregulation, whereas I’d prefer a philosophy that didn’t start from ‘competition is great’, but rather from ‘what works best for humanity and the planet’, which sometimes is competition, and sometimes might be more regulation.

The current wording on the other hand implies that our main problem with private monopolies is not just that they’re anti-competitive, but that they concentrate power and constrain equality of opportunity, which seems closer to what I understand as the core concerns of the Pirate moveement.

And I should apologise that I originally put my name down to be on the Constitution Review Committee but wasn’t paying attention so forgot about it and didn’t contribute to the development of these proposals.