We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Early Years & Childcare Act 3823
Details
Submitted by[?]: Coalition for National Unity [CNU]
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 3824
Description[?]:
| Proposer: Qualexander Vadir, Unionist Legislative Lead |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Pre-school education.
Old value:: The government leaves development of nurseries to the private sector.
Current: The government leaves development of nurseries to the private sector.
Proposed: The government maintains a system of free publically owned nurseries alongside heavily regulated private establishments.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding child benefit.
Old value:: Child benefit policies are left to local governments.
Current: The state guarantees child benefit to both low-income families and large families.
Proposed: The state guarantees child benefit to both low-income families and large families.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning adoption.
Old value:: Adoption policy is to be established by local governments.
Current: Adoption is regulated by the government. Applicants can adopt after a routine check-up.
Proposed: Adoption is regulated by the government. Applicants can adopt after a routine check-up.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:15:41, March 31, 2015 CET | From | Free Democratic Party | To | Debating the Early Years & Childcare Act 3823 |
| Message | "Adoption is a perfect example of something that should be left to local governments. Same as child benefit. Pre-school should be privatized, but we'd localize it if we had deregulation in other parts of the education system coming to be. The thing is that this bill PROMOTES regulation. How do people think this is a good idea?" ~Amy Smith, Secondary Chairman of the LPS |
| Date | 13:26:56, March 31, 2015 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Early Years & Childcare Act 3823 |
| Message | "To be clear, the regulations that the LPS are quick to shoot down are active to prevent paedophiles and child molesters from adopting children. Under the current laws, local Governments can waive those checks and regulations and allow child abusers to adopt. Can the LPS confirm that this is the situation that they are aiming for?" Qualexander Vadir, Unionist Legislative Lead |
| Date | 13:28:49, March 31, 2015 CET | From | Free Democratic Party | To | Debating the Early Years & Childcare Act 3823 |
| Message | "Why would a local government allow that?" ~Amy Smith, Secondary Chairman of the LPS |
| Date | 13:32:08, March 31, 2015 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Early Years & Childcare Act 3823 |
| Message | "If the LPS were in control of a local government, we could believe they would allow anything. From blocking access to specialist care for children with Special Needs to having the poor subsidise the education of the rich, the LPS have a proven track record of being weak and indecisive on child welfare. There is, however, the more important matter of there being a legal loophole which would allow extremist or even simply radically right-wing local governments allow child abusers and child molesters to adopt. The LPS are failing to address that by not supporting reasonable checks on adult who wish to take-on care responsibilities for vulnerable children." Qualexander Vadir, Unionist Legislative Lead |
| Date | 18:41:45, March 31, 2015 CET | From | Federal Green Party (FGP) | To | Debating the Early Years & Childcare Act 3823 |
| Message | Yeah no, no LPS controlled childcare center would allow pedophiles to adopt. This is just baseless fear mongering. But I agree, if it did happen then we should take measures against that local government and impose national standards for who can adopt. Fair enough? |
| Date | 19:58:56, March 31, 2015 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Early Years & Childcare Act 3823 |
| Message | "So the FGRP would have a child molsted before they take action and set national standards to protect them? Wow." Astryd Goldsea, Unionist Leaders |
| Date | 09:13:31, April 01, 2015 CET | From | Federal Green Party (FGP) | To | Debating the Early Years & Childcare Act 3823 |
| Message | Let me clarify: If the local government did establish rules that known pedophiles could adopt children then the national government should step up and prevent this. I thought this was obvious in my phrasing, my apologies. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 241 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 284 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When it comes to creating a Cultural Protocol in a Culturally Open nation, players are not necessarily required to provide a plausible backstory for how the nation's cultural background developed. However, the provision of a plausible backstory may be a factor in whether Moderation approves the Cultural Protocol if players in surrounding nations question its appropriateness for their region of the game map. |
| Random quote: "The key to understanding the American system is to imagine that you have the power to make nearly any law you want, but your worst enemy will be the one to enforce it." - Rick Cook |