Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 779549,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/779549/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 442,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Assembly comes in and it is very clear that if they do not agree with us, the report will die. If they agree, then we go to mediation which the Senators have the precedent to form, which is a clear process at least. The other issue is; if we agree that there should be an Independent County Boundaries Commission then Clause 24 which says ‘whenever parliament - does it mean that for every dispute you will have an Independent Counties Boundaries Commission? Since, it says ‘whenever parliament under Section 23 resolves that an Independent Counties Boundaries Commission be established.’ It means then every time with every dispute, we will be having a new Commission. It will be costly and if you look at the membership of that commission, they do not have bearing on the counties in dispute unlike the mediation Committee which has persons from the disputing counties. This one has composition which is straight forward: A Commissioner of the Independent Elections and Boundaries Commission, the National Lands Commission, two persons nominated by the Council of Governors then two persons from the professional body of surveyors. These are people who are not affected by where the dispute is. Subsequently, this could be a Standing Commission because it does not need to be formed for every dispute. We also have to check if we have to deal with the National Assembly and where they will come in. We have had cases where Bills go to coolers in the National Assembly and then they resurrect as a National Assembly Bill so that they will be the ones running the process, not the Senate .We also have to see how this one can go through the process and be an Act which will be useful. I will not like to dwell on this Bill a lot because I fully support it and my issues are with the 1992 boundaries and not the Bill. I will allow us to go back into those boundaries. I hope it does not say that those boundaries are cast in stone and that you cannot review them. What we are reviewing is actually those boundaries of 1992. I support the Bill."
}