Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1382485,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1382485/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 371,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Tharaka, UDA",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. George Murugara",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "have the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. We have the Energy Act when it comes to geothermal resources. We have the Mining Act for minerals. We have the Petroleum Act for petroleum and many others resources. There is a possibility that the drafters of this Bill were oblivious of these laws, and it poses a risk when it comes to enactment of a law such as this one. Hon. Temporary Speaker, I have also looked at the drafting format of this Bill and found some issues. For example, when it comes to the guiding principles of benefit sharing, Clause 4(b) talks about revenue maximisation and adequacy. However, the term “Adequacy” is not defined and yet, it cannot be guaranteed because it depends on what is being shared. Whether it is adequate or inadequate, it is actually shared. We also have a different way of drafting which is to be found in Section 5(2), paragraph (d). This is where we are forming an authority to govern benefit sharing. It reads that ‘the authority is capable of doing or performing such other things or acts for the proper performance of its functions under this Act, which may be lawfully done or performed by a body corporate.’ There are several issues here. Firstly, in legislative drafting, we cannot talk about “such other things” but rather “such other functions”. When it comes to performance in drafting, it is actually discharge of duties. The question begs as to why we would be saying, “which may be lawfully done or performed by a body corporate”. Body corporates do different things. Why would we import what other body corporates do into a statute like this one?"
}