Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1066228,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1066228/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 194,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Kihika",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13216,
        "legal_name": "Susan Wakarura Kihika",
        "slug": "susan-wakarura-kihika"
    },
    "content": "Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, in the parliamentary language that is softer and nicer, we do not have a constitutional moment at this point. I was talking about the 27 amendments to the Constitution of the USA that someone talked about on the Floor. I remind the distinguished Senators that the Constitution of the USA has been in place since 1787. So, it has taken 234 years to have 27 amendments. I bring this up to say that we do need to rush to come up with a constitutional amendment. I believe that at this point in time, our country is facing more difficult and serious issues whose attention we should be focusing on, instead of these constitutional amendments that are not a priority at this point in time. There is no rush. There are some good things in it that can be discussed as we move on. I also do not believe that as a Senate, we cannot change anything even a comma or a full stop as we are told. I do not believe that the Constitution would give us time to have public participation for it to state that whatever came out of those public participations would not find its way to the amendments. I totally disagree with that line of reasoning. I join my colleagues who say that we should make amendments. The reason we went through public participation is so that we can take all those other issues that we think should be amended. Let us talk about the issue of gender. I have heard the women of this House and male Senators as well, very passionately talk for and against. As a big proponent of gender parity in Parliament and our country, I strongly feel that the proposed Constitution (Amendment) Bill has done a disservice to the women of this country. I do not believe that there is anything to celebrate about in this constitution (Amendment) Bill. I believe that the 47 women representatives should have been left in place. Let us not combine them with the 47 that will come to the Senate. We should separate those two issues. I believe that the 47 elected women representatives should have remained in the National Assembly so that they partake in one of the most critical functions that we as women MPs should participate in. That is in the budget-making process. The reason I disagree that the 47 women should not come to the Senate is because the constitutional amendment also proposes, assuming that it passes, despite not having my vote, to create the offices of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, their deputies and the office of the Attorney-General, that will be domiciled in the National Assembly Colleagues, by bringing those elected women to the Senate, you take away the only chance that they have of being able to be appointed Prime Minister, deputy prime ministers, Cabinet Ministers and the Attorney-General of this country. 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."
}