Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 878231,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/878231/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 672,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. (Eng.) Mahamud",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 373,
        "legal_name": "Mohammed Maalim Mahamud",
        "slug": "mohammed-mahamud"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Temporary Speaker Sir, on the Division of Revenue Act, Section 5(1) of the Act currently says that any shortfall will be taken by the national Government, together with any increase. If an attempt is made to change that, then we open a pandoras box, and we will lose control. Therefore we, as the Senate, will say the way Section 5(1) of the Division of Revenue Act must remain as it is. In fact, even the draft that we have in the BPS proposes to change that both levels of Government will take up the shortfalls. Let us be on the watch out. Counties depend a lot on sharable revenue, one because the role of collecting national revenue is on the national Government. Counties do not share that role with the national Government. What is being shared is the national revenue and, therefore, you cannot expect shortfalls to be borne by county governments. However, having said that, county governments must also be obligated to collect Own Source Revenue, where it is possible. They should not just sleep and wait for monies to come from the national Government. To that end, a policy document has been discussed between the Council of Governors (CoG), the National Treasury and our Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO). In fact, the policy is supposed to be submitted to us. I am being told that it is now at the Government Printer, being printed. This policy document looks at the capacity of counties to raise revenue, what areas they should collect this revenue and how best they can do it. We are waiting on that and when it comes, we will table it."
}