Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 604912,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/604912/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 624,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Ms.) Abdalla",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 382,
        "legal_name": "Amina Ali Abdalla",
        "slug": "amina-abdalla"
    },
    "content": "We are more concerned about the possible impact on research that Clause 4 will bring if it is not amended at sub-clause 2. Concessions regarding scientific research and exploitation of natural resources are excluded except those that involve taking natural resources out of the country. If we do not amend 2, anybody can stop research that does not involve taking something out of the country by using the argument that Clause 4(1) supersedes Clause 4(2). As a Committee we intend to bring a slight amendment to Clause 4(2)(b) so that we do not get into that situation. On the question of 35, there is a dangerous precedent that has been set with regard to confidentiality agreement. As an individual who has had the privilege of seeing some of these agreements, I have fear that allowing the Cabinet Secretary to decide which components of an agreement can be confidential without giving access of that information to a Committee would be giving a blank cheque. My proposal would be to use the American example of the foreign relations committee where they are sworn to secrecy and they are given the full picture before they approve a transaction, rather than just being told that the Minister has agreed to part of that agreement being confidential and yet we do not know what is being hidden. Some of the things being hidden in the agreements are contrary to what we have sworn to uphold as Members of this House. We, therefore, need to change Clause 12 to ensure that they have a right to keep their matters confidential to the full House, but the Committee that is looking at that transaction needs to look at it more exclusively so that they do not approve bad contents of an agreement blindly. We will be seeking an amendment to deal with that issue of confidentiality. Let us make sure that business competitors do not get the contents of the agreement, but let us not have committees of this House approving agreements blindly. The other issue that has been mentioned by the Leader of the Majority Party is that of timelines. We know that the Senate has problems with passing Bills on time. We are concerned about them keeping the 60 days period of approving the amendment. Clause 15 is about the transactions that have been entered into between August, 2010 and August, 2015. This Bill recognizes that all those agreements are valid because of there not having been a ratification instrument. We are calling for more stringent audit of those agreements because they have not gone through ratification and some of them are about huge investments in different sectors that involve natural resources."
}