Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 824817,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/824817/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 21,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "(i) Every Motion that comes before the House is brought so that the House can express itself in one way or another – in support of or in opposition and thereafter, the House makes a decision or resolution. Such decision, however, should be a true and accurate reflection of the wishes of the House or of the wishes of the majority present and voting in the House and should thus not in any way be constrained or hamstrung by the methodology used to execute the Motion, be it a collective methodology or a singular/individual methodology; and, (ii) Section 9 of the Public Appointments (Parliamentary Approval) Act, 2011, requires Parliament to either approve or reject nomination of a candidate and if Parliament does make a decision on a nominee, the candidate shall be deemed to have been approved. Hon. Members, in consideration of the aforementioned, I wish to guide the House as follows: (i) THAT, any given nominee is appointed to public office as an individual and not as a collective appointee; (ii) THAT, any decision or resolution of the House ought to be a true and accurate reflection of the wishes of the House irrespective of the methodology used to execute any given Motion; (iii) THAT, the procedural and technical aspects of a Motion should not overshadow or take pre-eminence over the true will of Members by this august House; (iv) THAT, in line with the Commonwealth tenet propositioned by Speaker William Lenthall on 4th January 1642 when he declared that “I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the house is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here”, the Speaker does not impose upon Members the methodology through which to execute a Motion, but grants them leeway in determining the most appropriate approach; (v) THAT, the Members of this august House are at liberty, on a case by case basis, through a Procedural Motion, to determine the most appropriate methodology of executing Special Motions; that is, the option of collective approval of all nominees or singular/separate approval of each nominee with the sole objective of obtaining a true and accurate reflection of the will of the Members of this House; (vi) THAT, the only limitation that Members have in consideration of Special Motions is that no additional name or names may be proposed to be added to a Special Motion, but proposals to delete a particular name or names from a Special Motion are tenable/admissible but Members need to be cautious as to whether a deletion of a particular name is equivalent to rejection; and, (vii) On this particular Special Motion, therefore, and arising from the concerns of Members, I will proceed to put the Question on each individual nominee separately. The House is, therefore, accordingly guided. Let us move to the next Order."
}