Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 712604,
    "url": "http://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/712604/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 49,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "look for the answers and give them to the Members once they are ready. That is reasonable, fair and should be done. Back to Sen. Khaniri’s Statements, if it is true that the Statements were not on the Order Paper, that is laxity on the part of our staff. But that is usually redeemed in a number of ways. One, a Member would usually come to the Floor - which I do not encourage but nonetheless it is still effective- to remind the Chair of the Statement. We have always directed that the Statement is brought back to the Order Paper. The Member could also approach the Speaker for the matter to be re-introduced. The Chairperson of the Committee could also approach the Speaker for the matter to be re-introduced. We have a tracker of all the Statements and whenever a Statement is sought and the Chairperson promises the period within which to reply, the matter will be on the Order Paper at the lapse of that period. Depending on whether or not they are ready, we have always disposed them in terms of when to make it available on the Order Paper. It is possible that this could have escaped the attention of everybody including you, but it is a matter that we can redeem. If you see five Statements by a Member on the Order Paper, it is not because the Member canvassed. Last week, we referred most of the Statements to Wednesday and Thursday. It is possible that because of that referral, the Statements happened to be on the same day. Unless I get information to the contrary, I imagine that, that would be the case. There is no deliberate attempt to favour one Member against another. What is it, Sen. Billow?"
}