GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/296929/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 296929,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/296929/?format=api",
"text_counter": 1733,
"type": "other",
"speaker_name": "",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Section 29(2) is a natural contrary to 29(1) that for avoidance of doubt--- You can delete 29(2) but 29(1) would still stand. But for avoidance of doubt because 29(1) basically says that whoever nominates you must be a Member of your political party, the contrary to that is that if you do not have a political party, nobody can nominate you. This was put here for avoidance of doubt. It was made very clear by the technical people. It may appear superfluous but we are doing it for avoidance of doubt. I suppose time is not on our side. We only have 15 minutes to midnight and if we could get rid of some of these things before debating them, then we could make progress. Deleting 29(2) will be going contrary to the Constitution and we will not be giving the independent candidates any advantage because they will not be supported by a political party member."
}