Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 885693,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/885693/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 165,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "As cited from the three legislative authorities, a progress report is seldom discussed. If so, it has to be debated without calling the House to make a resolution, give orders or directions. A resolution based on an interim report may certainly prejudice the outcome of the actual inquiry. Moreover, it should not be lost to the House that, a Motion governed by Part XII of our Standing Orders and which seeks a resolution of the House ultimately ends with a question being put, the result of which may be that “Ayes” or the “Nays” have it. This begs the question: What would be the procedural implication if the “Nays” had it (for instance), meaning that the progress report is rejected? Obviously, such a decision, which is probable in a parliamentary set up would render worthless the incomplete work of the Committee and any related special audit. It is for these reasons that most Commonwealth legislatures have resorted to only allowing comments on progress reports or statements, instead of debate upon a Motion. Allowing comments is meant to accord the Committee an opportunity to inform the House on the progress of the inquiry before it, while cushioning the remaining work from possible criticism, prejudices and binding directive that would arise, if the House was to debate the report by way of an ordinary Motion."
}