Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1591313,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1591313/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 70,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "his account, which the Senator argued was tantamount to denial of his ability to effectively engage with his constituents and the public. Hon. Senators, ordinarily, personal statements in the Commonwealth are mechanisms that provide a limited opportunity for Members of Parliament (MPs) to explain matters of a personal nature. By practice, personal statements are not subject to intervention or debate on account that they are personal. As such, therefore, the contents of the statements are submitted to the Speaker to ensure that they are confined to matters of a personal nature and the Members granted leave by the Speaker to make such Statements are not allowed to depart from the approved text. The approval of such statements is given with a high degree of caution on the part of the Speaker, to ensure that parliamentary proceedings remain focused and not derailed. In this respect, personal statements, as Standing Order No.58 implies, should be giving explanations and should be restricted to a specific matter that a Senator wishes to explain. While the facts of the matter may be stated briefly, this should not stray into general arguments or seeking responses. These are the parameters that have been and will be applied when considering requests for personal statements. I urge all Hon. Senators to observe them when preparing personal statements. Hon. Senators, the second question that required my determination is what constitutes adverse reference in debates within the meaning of Standing Order No.101(1). As Hon. Senators are aware, adverse reference in the context of parliamentary debates means unfavorable or defamatory statements or allegations of an incriminatory nature against individuals or institutions. Standing Order No.101(1) is a safeguard measure that protects individuals who are not in the Senate and, therefore, lack the privilege to defend themselves. This is rooted in the principle that those who are not present in the Senate and hence cannot respond to comments made by Senators, are not targeted or maligned in the course of proceedings. While all Senators are entitled and, indeed, obligated to bring to the attention of the Senate any matter, which one believes merit to be investigated to safeguard good governance, this must be done without resorting to personal attacks on the office holders. It is necessary to exercise caution and restraint, not to delve into debate that may form grounds for removal from office. There is an elaborate procedure for such debate as provided for under Articles 145, 150 and 181 of the Constitution; Section 33 of the County Governments Act; and Standing Orders No.78, 79 and 80, which allow the Senate to make a distinct decision on the matter. Comments that touch on the grounds for removal should, therefore, be reserved for the appropriate substantive processes, while general matters of concern may be addressed through the relevant legislative tools. Hon. Senators, going forward, I expect that we adhere to the provisions of Standing Order No.101(1) in debates in the Senate. Moderation, civility and restraint are some of the hallmarks of parliamentary debate. It will be out of order for any Senator to The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and AudioServices, Senate."
}