Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 864771,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/864771/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 477,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Farhiya",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13179,
        "legal_name": "Farhiya Ali Haji",
        "slug": "farhiya-ali-haji"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Madam Temporary Speaker. Allow me to also congratulate you for being elevated to the Speakers‟ Panel. From the onset, I support this Bill, because retirement is very important for everybody. I have an issue with the wording in the Bill, because some of the terms that have been used were already clearly articulated in the Retirement Benefits Act. We should first refer to the RBA Act. I can see reference to “actuary” and among the things that board members are supposed to appoint, there is no mention of an actuary. That anomaly needs to be rectified the way Sen. (Dr.) Zani had suggested. If a pension scheme does not have an actuary that means that the scheme can be taken for a ride by everybody. An actuary is able to assess what is there in terms of comparing players. For example, if this Fund manager is performing well but you need to fire or hire, depending on how the market is, the only person who can determine that is an actuary. Even if the board appoints the actuary on a timeline basis, for example, to give feedback on a quarterly basis; bi-annually or annually, the element of an actuary must come out in this Bill. I have a big problem with the constitution of this Board. This has already been said but why I am against it is because it is a defined contribution pension scheme. What that means is that the employer contributes and out of that money, it is prudently The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}