Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 356985,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/356985/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 407,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Bunyas",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2511,
        "legal_name": "John Sakwa Bunyasi",
        "slug": "john-sakwa-bunyasi"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Deputy Speaker, I rise to contribute to this Motion. I am very glad about the very intent of this Motion. Much as I have got sympathy for the ASAL areas, l believe that general investment that reduces the risk in ASAL areas ought to be increased. I would like to see much more investment in water. Pastoralism and livestock keeping are not commercial activities. They are a mixture of commercial and lifestyle activities. Insurance will not insure lifestyle, it will insure the commercial side. I think the most important thing that this House should push for is that investment including communication, whether rail or road as well as facilities such as abattoirs and feed regimes. There are several ways of doing that and it ought to be enhanced. I support that very strongly. My worry about insurance is that it is going to be a one way affair. With the covariance of risk, that when you have drought it is going to be affecting a whole region, it is an indirect way of saying that the budget allocations cannot cover these loses. This House should consider recommending an income support type for pastoral communities, when it is declared that we have a disaster. We do not want to do that via insurance. If you do that via insurance, when you know that it is certain that it is just going to be a definite payment each time it occurs, it is no longer insurance; it is just a Treasury transfer done to the pastoralists. Much as I support the need to reduce the risk for livestock theft, there are many other tools to use other than insurance I would be very reluctant to support a singular approach via insurance because it is a definite way of simply sinking money down and you do not necessarily get the results that you want. One of the major reasons why we do not get results is called moral hazard. We have had insurance in this country guaranteeing minimum returns. The beneficiaries are usually those who do not deserve it. The reason is that you can never tell the difference between the one who does and the one who does not. You do not have the database to do that. Let us agree that there is need to support the ASAL areas. Let us use the alternative instruments to do that. This is not one of the best instruments. With those few remarks, I beg to oppose."
}