Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 478100,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/478100/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 308,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Speaker",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "In the courts, particularly the higher courts, it is not uncommon for judges in a bench to make differing determinations on a matter. However, the decision of the court is carried by the majority of the members constituting the bench. In parliamentary parlance, the application of this principle is not new. In the Commonwealth of New Zealand, the Speakers have reached a common ruling on this matter, which I wish to quote from a publication called the Speakers’ Ruling, 2011. This particular authority is rather long, but due to its importance on the matter before us, I will quote most of it. “Differing views should be fairly reflected in reports. There is a strong presumption that this will occur. Members who are in the minority have a legitimate expectation that all reasonable steps will be taken to ensure that this convention is followed even though in their Standing Order No.242, it gives discretion to committees. That discretion should only be exercised as a last result when text supplied by a minority is significantly misleading or intemperately expressed and reasonable efforts to find a compromise has been unsuccessful. Where possible, Members should give some advance warning that they are likely to enter different views, so that their perspectives can be incorporated. There is no such thing as a minority report. There is only one report presented to the House by a Select Committee. The minority or differing views may be indicated in a report. No committee is obliged to indicate diverging views in a report. A majority of the committee can refuse to include other views if it wishes, but a majority cannot rewrite a minority’s views so that, effectively, the majority is putting words in the minority’s mouth. That would misrepresent divergent views. A minority does not have a blank cheque to include whatever it wishes in the report. A majority can refuse to admit different views all together. If a minority views are objectionable or too long, there may be a trade off whereby the minority agrees to curl its contribution, but this must be done consensually. The majority cannot just rewrite the minority’s views. A minority contribution, like every contribution, must be relevant to the subject before the Committee”. The Chairperson rules on relevance. The indication of a minority report is a mechanism to allow the House to be acquainted with the completeness of the issues about which there has been disagreement, before the House can make a resolution.”"
}