Talk:Child Safety and Health Act, 648
From The Kodiak Republic Wiki
— 18/12/2022 20:34
Tabled for consideration of the assembly by John Stevens (DPK) as an independent member's bill.
Child safety and health act of 648
Child safety and health
Proposed by John Stevens, MGA, DPK.
Voting is presently set for 01 Jan 2023
Note, while this is the third independent members bill currently in the Assembly, I have released it to the floor while I have placed the MOLEN Act on pause pending a new proposal. I thank the members for their understanding.
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 19/12/2022 04:05
I see no real downside to this bill. It holds negligent or malicious parents more accountable for their actions. I support this bill.
Yungly, CEO of Chest and co — 19/12/2022 08:19
I have to agree, 0 downsides here
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 20/12/2022 08:43
I think this would be a good step in protecting and ensuring the future of children in the Kodiak republic
John Edwards [KWP] — 20/12/2022 08:51
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 20/12/2022 12:19
Freelian — 20/12/2022 22:53
I must say I agree with this proposal. I do not see any problems, so far.
Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 21/12/2022 03:30
Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 21/12/2022 03:51
With overwhelming approval, I motion an early vote.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 21/12/2022 03:52
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 21/12/2022 05:38
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 21/12/2022 05:38
Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 21/12/2022 05:56
(I believe we just need a second, but I fifth my motion lol)
Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 21/12/2022 07:36
Gabriel Mondo (Karr) [NUP] — 21/12/2022 09:31
I think the statement "or make life liveable" under proposition 1.2 should be better clarified. Other than that, I support the spirit of this bill.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 21/12/2022 09:38
Is that good? Edited
Gabriel Mondo (Karr) [NUP] — 21/12/2022 09:39
More directly, I would support an adjustment to proposition 1.2, something along the lines of: "If the inquiry proves necessary to save the life of said child it will be the governments duty to provide such treatment to said child." I think the current iteration leaves too much open to speculation. The difficulty being which party would decide what "make life liveable" means. Is it the doctor, the child, the state? Just creates an unnecessary grey area, in my estimation.
Gabriel Mondo (Karr) [NUP] — 21/12/2022 09:40
If you were to clarify the pain or discomfort as being physical, I would support the change.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 21/12/2022 09:41
How about that?
— 21/12/2022 09:41
I note that if you are making changes then I cannot honour the motion to vote until the member moving as well as his second has an opportunity to look over those changes
Also, usually its such that multiple members "second" a motion, not that they count upward.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 21/12/2022 09:42
I’m not necessary, making changes im more or less clarifying but sure
— 21/12/2022 09:43
changes to language will ultimately change meaning, even if clarification is the change
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 21/12/2022 09:43
Then is everyone good with the slight clarification?
Gabriel Mondo (Karr) [NUP] — 21/12/2022 09:46
I would oppose that change because of the inability to measure "mental" pain or discomfort as effectively as physical pain. We're talking about the state usurping the authority of parents over their own children. That should only be permissible in life-ending scenarios and extreme physical maladies.
— 21/12/2022 09:47
I am going to perform a small formatting edit if you could pause for a moment
Gabriel Mondo (Karr) [NUP] — 21/12/2022 09:47
— 21/12/2022 09:50
I just want to ask - what is the budget on this?
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 21/12/2022 09:54
i dont really have a clear answer to that tho I'm open to suggestions by the assembly
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 21/12/2022 09:56
i wrote mental in the case that a child could have a serious mental disorder like depression and in witch the parent were not willing to give therapy
Gabriel Mondo (Karr) [NUP] — 21/12/2022 09:59
Like I said, I support the spirit of this legislation, but I believe "mental" unwellness is hard to verify, and unwellness should be able to be verified if we're going to usurp the authority of parents over their children.
I think only targeting physical maladies would alleviate my issue with the bill
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 21/12/2022 10:01
I believe defining mental health would be better suited for a dedicated bill tackling it.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 21/12/2022 10:01
i think mabye we can start at ruff estimate 82 mil
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 21/12/2022 10:01
We should focus on what is most obvious and measurable.
Gabriel Mondo (Karr) [NUP] — 21/12/2022 10:02
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 21/12/2022 10:04
The mental health of our citizens required a more dedicated organization that can properly handle that. Besides even if we criminalize parents for allowing their children to be mental unwell, how are we supposed to help the children in our current state if their mental illness is not directly caused by their parents?
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 21/12/2022 10:04
ok in that case i will take out mental leave it only to physical and leave mental up to future legslation
Gabriel Mondo (Karr) [NUP] — 21/12/2022 10:07
Excellent. With that change I'm happy to support this bill when voting begins.
Klaus Mikaelson — 21/12/2022 10:30
Mental health is incredibly important. To leave it out entirely is yet another disservice to the people of Kodiak by this assembly
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 21/12/2022 10:53
There's also the factor that extreme abuse doesn't necessarily always mean physical harm.
Gabriel Mondo (Karr) [NUP] — 21/12/2022 10:54
All considerations that don't necessarily need to be addressed by this bill. I think the bill as it exists is a good first step with broad agreement.
This adjustment isn't to say that mental health is unimportant, only that using it as a potential justification to usurp a parents authority of their own child is not ideal.
Adding it back into the bill would only risk the bill not being approved at all, which would be a disservice to the children of Kodiak.
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 21/12/2022 11:02
Looking at some potential reference policies (simulation wise), I think 82 million may be too lofty a number. For example, an anti-corruption agency comes to 30 million / quarter. Unless of course that 82 million is an annual number! That said this is the first sort of comparison I found while looking at the Government Reports section of the wiki.
John Edwards [KWP] — 21/12/2022 17:08
Costs would involve the inquiry team and associated paperwork. We're not setting up a whole separate body, but as part of Social Services. I think we could implement this quite easily for 2.5m per quarter (10m annually).
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 22/12/2022 12:07
So are we all in agreement about funding
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 22/12/2022 13:03
Yes I believe the Chancellor's assessment is correct, and this is more a legislated function of Social Services. So 2.5m/quarter makes a lot of sense.
— 23/12/2022 08:54
If the member would like to add the clause to his proposal, I will call the vote.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 23/12/2022 08:54
One second having a little bit of trouble trying to add it
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 23/12/2022 09:04
OK it seems for whatever reason I can’t add the article so I’m gonna just put it under safety and health
— 23/12/2022 09:04
if you type the clause here I can add it
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 23/12/2022 09:09
One question Who am I funding this to? A Department, the inquiry team, im not entirely sure.
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 23/12/2022 09:10
This falls under the ministry of social services I believe; Klaus’ ministry.
John Edwards [KWP] — 23/12/2022 09:10
Social Services would receive the funding to establish the inquiry teams and associated paperwork.
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 23/12/2022 09:11
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 23/12/2022 09:13
Article 3 - funding 3.1 the ministry of social services will be quarterly funded 2.5 million florens to fund the inquiries and associated paperwork
— 23/12/2022 09:17
I may have adjusted the language a bit to be more clear
Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 23/12/2022 09:17
— 23/12/2022 09:18
I will allow 24 hours for any objections otherwise I shall then call the vote.
— 24/12/2022 10:20
Do you approve of the Child Safety and Health Act, 648
🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░ [16 • 80%]
🇧 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 10%]
🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 10%]
20 users voted
- alarm_clock: Poll already ended (3 days ago)
- spy: Anonymous Poll
- one: allowed choice
- lock: No other votes allowed
Allowed roles: @Assembly Member
Poll ID: zbERfLQYBr
— 24/12/2022 10:21
The vote has now been called. Debate is suspended. The poll shall remain open for 96 hours.
— 28/12/2022 16:34
The poll has ended. The act has been passed with 16:2:2. This thread shall be archived in 24 hours.