Talk:Wartime Humanitarian Aid Camps, 645

Patrick Barber — 14/11/2022 08:22 @Assembly Member Tabled by the Luchens Administration for consideration of the assembly Wartime Humanitarian Aid Camps, 645 Recognising that The Kodiak Republic is in a state of war with The Great North. This act establishes humanitarian aid camps for internally displaced citizens and residents of The Kodiak Republic in order to provide shelter, supplies, and medical aid for those forced to abandon their homes as a result of the hostilities perpetuated by The Great North. https://kodiak.fandom.com/wiki/Wartime_Humanitarian_Aid_Camps,_645 Proposed by Minister Hester Sirocco-Loren, KWP, MGA, with contributions by Chancellor Oskar Luchens, NUP, MGA, and Minister Gustave Bernier, KWP, MGA. Voting is presently set for 5 Dec 2022 Patrick Barber pinned a message to this channel. See all pinned messages . — 14/11/2022 08:22 Klaus Mikaelson — 14/11/2022 10:37 I don't believe that we should recognize that a state of war exists at this point, so that's an issue right off the bat Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 14/11/2022 10:39 Although we are at a stalemate currently and are looking to end hostilities, that doesn't mean we should deny that we are in a state of war. Klaus Mikaelson — 14/11/2022 10:42 We should deny it because the "war" has been a failure from the very start and has nullified any activity the region was enjoying before this term. It's time so simply move on instead of dragging out this disaster any longer Patrick Barber — 14/11/2022 10:49 GM: it is my hope to resolve the conflict in a more approachable fashion this term Klaus Mikaelson — 14/11/2022 11:31 @Patrick Barber may I ask for some sort of clarifying details? as in, how do you intend to do that, or what are you thinking in potential ways to do that? Patrick Barber — 14/11/2022 11:32 I will provide more details when I can - I have been slowed quite a bit of what I can do by my spate of illnesses Klaus Mikaelson — 14/11/2022 11:33 is article 4.1 meant to say "1000 million"? I would like to ask a government representative, whomever has the ability to answer, why is the outgoing government now interested in setting up humanitarian camps/hubs when earlier in the term they fought against allowing immigrants to continue to enter the country, and wished to limit the number of those entering the country. The two policies seem counter to each other. Patrick Barber — 14/11/2022 11:35 I'm not the one asked, but I believe the camps are for Kodiaker citizens escaping the Darrent Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 14/11/2022 11:36 "This act establishes humanitarian aid camps for internally displaced citizens and residents of The Kodiak Republic in order to provide shelter, supplies, and medical aid for those forced to abandon their homes as a result of the hostilities perpetuated by The Great North." Klaus Mikaelson — 14/11/2022 11:36 Thank you, Sir. John Edwards [KWP] — 14/11/2022 15:32 Is this in addition to the Refugee Resettlement Program? Could this be incorporated into the program or vice versa? We fought hard not to have it abolished. TheRealMVP — 15/11/2022 01:03 i think this document should show how many people got displaced and why the budget is ₣1000 million, yes this all sounds logical and who would vote against but still bothers me there is no info given in this, i will not vote blindly Klaus Mikaelson — 15/11/2022 01:24 I'm still wondering if 1000 million is a typo Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 15/11/2022 01:24 There's actually a bit of a conundrum with this bill being put to discussion at this present time. As the situation in the Darrent has changed completely, this bill was written and submitted early in the term where the Ministry of Social Services had instruction to arrange for the care and aid to citizens displaced due to the conflict. However due to the large GA queue it seems it has only made it to floor now. (Perhaps this is another discussion altogether, our queues long!) So in my opinion this bill should be reconsidered and perhaps updated in line with the new realities today. I say this as the original author as well as I believe for any piece of legislation we always have to take into account present/future realities. So I'm glad discussion has occurred so far! Klaus Mikaelson — Yesterday at 9:37 AM I don't believe that we should recognize that a state of war exists at this point, so that's an issue right off the bat We're on the same page, we should examine this based on today's realities and perhaps re-purpose. To answer some questions briefly (OOC: I'll be able to discuss more ~Wednesday, tomorrow I'm fairly preoccupied RL): TheRealMVP — Today at 12:03 AM i think this document should show how many people got displaced and why the budget is ₣1000 million, yes this all sounds logical and who would vote against but still bothers me there is no info given in this, i will not vote blindly The reason that 'how many people' were displaced is not information embedded in the bill is three fold - 1) Impractical to do so when the numbers are indeterminate at the time; 2) In general practice, this act may have extended beyond the Darrent, and humanitarian aid does not have a numbers threshold by nature; 3) This is not meant to be a permanent act and needed only last until the conflict concludes, where future Governments would commit to rebuilding. The budget was provided erring on more than enough, however the intention is that Social Services would spend as much as needed and any remaining would inevitably be repurposed (whether in current or future Chancellorships). John Edwards [KWP] — Yesterday at 2:32 PM Is this in addition to the Refugee Resettlement Program? Could this be incorporated into the program or vice versa? We fought hard not to have it abolished. RE: Refugee Resettlement Program: not in addition, as this should be removed by the GA when it is no longer relevant. I think also that Refugee Resettlement ought to refer to refugees from outside Kodiak. RE: 1000 million, OOC answer here: That budget is in Florins, my understanding is that it is not worth as much as the USD so I would adjust the expectations on that number. I also copied the style of saying ₣1000 million from previous bills, but if people really hate it we can always change it to say billion... (So not a typo, just a format used, not sure when it started... I'm indifferent to it though so happy for it to change) Klaus Mikaelson — 15/11/2022 01:54 I don't hate it, I just wanted to make sure it was intentional. 😛 John Edwards [KWP] — 15/11/2022 01:55 RE: Refugee Resettlement Program: not in addition, as this should be removed by the GA when it is no longer relevant. I think also that Refugee Resettlement ought to refer to refugees from outside Kodiak. Normally I would agree but refugees coming in from outside are essentially zero, and the service/program is already trained and equipped for this kind of eventuality, just not on this scale. Patrick Barber — 15/11/2022 15:57 Is this budget of 1 billion just a one time budget or per quarter? Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 15/11/2022 23:38 Per quarter, this does lead me to an interesting note: The act states: 4.1 - Allocates ₣1000 million quarterly in funding to the Humanitarian Aid Task Force. 4.2 - Funding may be reviewed by the General Assembly and adjusted accordingly on a quarterly basis to account for the progression of the conflict with The Great North. Given that the progression of conflict is currently in the state of ceasefire, I would say this is a valid time to review those funding requirements as they were made at a time of active war. Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 15/11/2022 23:42 I concede that is a fair point but my concern remains where this act is designed to end when the conflict ends, and turns its focus towards resettlement. With the aid camps being temporary only. I would want the refugee resettlement laws to be reviewed in any case, as it is presently (though set to zero?) focused on detention and screening. Patrick Barber — 23/11/2022 09:23 Its been over a week since last contribution - are there any more points to be discussed? Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 23/11/2022 11:53 I motion an early vote Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 23/11/2022 19:56 If there are no objections, I would like to motion that we reduce funding to ₣500 million quarterly given the immediate crisis is no longer at an immediate threatening level. I believe the excess funding can be better deployed elsewhere, and this reduced funding would still ensure that our internally displaced citizens are accounted and cared for. Should the worst happen - we will also in a better position than a few years ago where we had zero infrastructure for this capability. Should the best case happen - we can gradually reduce funding requirements once efficiencies are developed for such an event. Eventually when the crisis concludes, this act will redirect to resettlement but the infrastructure, logistics, and knowledge gained can be repurposed to humanitarian crisis in the future. Klaus Mikaelson — 24/11/2022 00:38 I second that motion Patrick Barber — 24/11/2022 14:47 there being no objections or commentary, I shall edit the bill accordingly Amended Patrick Barber — 25/11/2022 12:10 If there are no more comments, I will begin the vote in 24 hours Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 25/11/2022 17:23 I would make one correction:* If after the end of the war, within a year of the end of the war, refugees should find work, otherwise various free things will be gradually taken away from them. Patrick Barber — 25/11/2022 17:53 I just want to confirm you're aware these are war refugees from our own citizenry within a war-torn part of our own country Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 25/11/2022 19:13 They also aren't getting "free things" post war. Relocation assistance is the only thing that could be called "free", and that has a specific purpose. Public housing is also a different matter, and have different rules (See Public housing act). I echo also the President's statement. Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 25/11/2022 19:17 Also if might add expecting them to be able to find a job let alone get one is un realistic we’re not taking in to consideration mental heath ptsd and other factors involved Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 25/11/2022 19:18 Those are valid points, but I feel those matters ought to be a different Social Services objective, and the issue of finding a job is nationwide and ought to be addressed by the Government holistically. (ie., I don't disagree, but not sure this is the right bill for it) Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 27/11/2022 15:00 I put forward another motion of vote for the current bill, as we are at a natural end point of discussion on the topic of displaced citizens. Patrick Barber — 27/11/2022 15:01 I accept the motion - I will require at least three objections to halt the procession to vote. The vote will begin in 24 hours. Patrick Barber — 28/11/2022 21:19 This vote will be postponed pending approval of the treaty with TGN Patrick Barber — 01/12/2022 11:59 Given the wide verbal support in the treaty debate, I would like to ask are we still happy with this bill (assuming the treaty does pass?) or do we feel it is no longer relevant? Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 01/12/2022 12:00 The bill states that it becomes null automatically during peacetime. So I think it is no longer relevant considering the overwhelming support for the peace treaty. Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 01/12/2022 12:01 I mean just because the war is over doesn’t mean like every gets their home back I think we should still pass the bill because there’s most likely a lot of houses that were damaged neighborhoods stuff like that and it will probably take a bit for them to be rebuilt but I think it’s still pretty good bill for refugees from the darrent also, if it’s an inactive during peacetime, we may want to change that Patrick Barber — 01/12/2022 12:02 I would suggest a more directed infrastructure and support bill would perhaps be of better use. Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 01/12/2022 12:08 I believe that the bill should be deemed irrelevant considering the great deal of support for peace. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 01/12/2022 12:26 Maybe we should draft a new bill for a state housing program as a more permanent solution. Patrick Barber — 01/12/2022 12:27 such a bill would need to be an amendment or replacement to the existing Public Housing Act https://kodiak.fandom.com/wiki/The_Public_Housing_Act,_642 Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 01/12/2022 12:32 Ah ok it was listed as not implemented in the policy review https://kodiak.fandom.com/wiki/Ministry_of_Social_Services_Policy_Reviews Patrick Barber — 01/12/2022 12:33 the reviews are not always up to date beyond the information on each policy as the superior list would be the law code itself of course any citizen could update the list by copy pasting the information between sections as the wiki is a public editable source Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 01/12/2022 12:35 Ah ok Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 01/12/2022 13:08 The only relevant parts of the bill remaining is Article 3: Article 3 - Peacetime disbandment 3.1 - At the conclusion of the war with The Great North, the HATF shall begin to disband aid hubs and aid in the relocation of residents and citizens throughout Kodiak. 3.2 - Relocation assistance, and the provision of temporary housing will be managed through the Ministry of Social Services. 3.3 - Citizens may request to be added to the Public Housing wait list and be given priority for assessment. As the original author my opinion is: It would make sense that a more measured set of policies from Social Services in the current Government should take over and expand on this. I would also be in favour of better disaster support such that these reactionary bills are no longer needed. John Edwards [KWP] — 01/12/2022 14:22 I was looking at this, if there was a way to repurpose the allocation to relocation and resettlement, however as peace will (hopefully) be coming before it passes, it may be a moot point. Patrick Barber — 04/12/2022 09:24 The Peace has been passed. That leads us to ask what we want to do with this bill or if we want to abandon it Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 04/12/2022 09:34 If we want to accommodate housing and aid for the homeless I feel we should focus on a more permanent solution. Perhaps increasing funding for state housing and/or passing some rent control measures. Luik Oule - Kallamaya [KWP] — 04/12/2022 10:25 Agreed. A more permanent solution to housing issues would be preferable. Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 04/12/2022 10:42 We already kinda have free housing for the homeless right @Patrick Barber? Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 04/12/2022 10:43 Yeah I thought we passed a housing act Patrick Barber — 04/12/2022 10:44 An act exists, but in a surprise to no one, I am very in favour of increasing its funding Patrick Barber — 04/12/2022 11:24 I just want to clarify, the act does not discriminate based on homelessness vs homed per se but instead concentrates on the social needs of specific family groupings and provides access to public housing on that basis. More can be read in the act itself here: https://kodiak.fandom.com/wiki/The_Public_Housing_Act,_642 Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 04/12/2022 11:44 I'm in favour of abandoning this bill, and make a motion as such. Just to expand on my thoughts. It would make sense that a more measured set of policies such as via Social Services and others if relevant in the current Government should take over and address those that need aid in resettlement or relocation as a result of war. In combination with the public housing act perhaps. I would also be in favour of better disaster (in general) support such that these reactionary bills are no longer needed. Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 04/12/2022 11:50 So if we do throw this out what about the thousands who had their houses blown up new housing bill? Patrick Barber — 04/12/2022 11:51 We concrete on rebuilding the Darrent instead of building aid camps outside of it Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 04/12/2022 11:51 And the people again who do not have proper housing Patrick Barber — 04/12/2022 11:52 The war did not flatten the entire province. Houses and schools and civic centres still stand I would urge you to read the text of this bill to see it does not do the things you want it to do. Which is why we are shelving it Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 04/12/2022 12:00 Fine but what do we do about the people who do not have proper housing a new bill I doubt the bomb raid did not result in no civilian housing losses Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 04/12/2022 12:08 The Darrent situation does not stop at peace, Chancellor Edwards has in the past expressed his desire to ensure we rebuild and the citizens in the Darrent region are taken care of. We'd welcome further sharing of thoughts in that regard of course - would that now be better suited to the lobby? John Edwards [KWP] — 04/12/2022 12:12 Articles 1 & 2 have become moot, articles 3 &4 would now come into play but it might be more suitable to propose those separately. Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 04/12/2022 12:13 The bill is aimed at providing shelter during the war… most of post war efforts are recovery, not immediate, urgent responses to disasters. In my opinion, this bill should be dropped from the floor, and replaced with another bill aimed at directly targeting the housing crisis after the war. Patrick Barber — 04/12/2022 12:13 just re-iterating the present motion is to shelve this specific legislation I will allow for 24 hours for any specific objections - noting that Mr. Stevens has expressed a desire to amend and expand instead of replace. Patrick Barber — Today at 13:06 This bill has been shelved