Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1425264,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1425264/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 201,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Cherarkey",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13217,
        "legal_name": "Cherarkey K Samson",
        "slug": "cherarkey-k-samson"
    },
    "content": "Vihiga, Bomet, and Meru counties so that we can complement each other. However, this is not a competition. On public participation, this proposal falls flat on its face. It must fall on its sword. I have seen a proposal about the Joint Sitting of Parliament in this Bill. Why would you call us – when the South African Parliament has a Presidential address referred to as South Africa's State of the Nation Address (SONA), they use joint sitting rules. Why are you calling us for a joint sitting and using the National Assembly Standing Orders? Then make the Speaker of the Senate to be like the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly? This Bill has been drafted to demean, disparage and eradicate the Senate's standing. This is why we, as a Senate, can pride ourselves on indicating for the first time that we need Kshs415 billion to be allocated to counties. We stand by this. Our stand will not change. The other day, when they were handling the issue of fake fertilizer, they could not rise to the occasion and put the wrongs into right. We discussed the issue of joint resolutions in the Supreme Court. The ruling was that we must have a concurrence signed by the National Assembly. Clause 10 says- “(1) Whenever the Speaker of the second House disagrees with the question raised as contemplated under section 8(2)(b), the Speaker shall immediately refer back the question to the Speaker of the originating House for reconsideration, noting the specific clauses of the Bill subject to the disagreement and the specific reasons for the disagreement.” My worries on this on Clause 10(3). It says- \"If the originating Speaker causes the Bill to be modified to accommodate the observations and recommendations of the Speaker of the second House, the question shall be deemed to have been resolved for purposes of Article 110(3) of the Constitution.\" We have removed legislation from Members of Parliament to the two Speakers, which is dangerous. This would result in the creation of draconian laws. Speakers are human beings and can mislead the country and create draconian laws. You are a person of the Solomonic organization. This is why we have tremendous respect for the Speaker. Nonetheless, the law does not envisage a Speaker or Speakers being part of the law- making process. Clause 12(3)(b) says- \"The relevant departmental committee of the Assembly is at liberty to take up the origination of the Bill or motion in question in co-sponsorship with the Senator who sponsored the Bill or motion, and the process of consideration of the Bill be deemed to begin afresh in the Assembly pursuant to the provisions of Article 109(5) of the Constitution.\" The National Assembly has become a graveyard of our Bills. Under Article 110(3), they always refer our Bills to the Parliamentary Budget Office and their"
}