Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1425323,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1425323/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 260,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Osotsi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13588,
        "legal_name": "Osotsi Godfrey Otieno",
        "slug": "osotsi-godfrey-otieno"
    },
    "content": "Why should we be denied an opportunity to participate in appropriations Bill and Finance Bill? After all, we pass two major instruments in the financial process; The Budget Policy Statement and the Medium-Term Debt Management Strategy. Why are we involved in passing these two important financial instruments when we cannot participate in appropriations Bill, Finance Bill or any other that is a money Bill? This is a bigger question that we want answered. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, Clause 14(1)(a) of this Bill says- “If one House passes an ordinary Bill concerning county government and the second House rejects the Bill, it shall be referred to a Mediation Committee appointed under Article 113 of the Constitution” On one hand, they want to make sure that the Senate does not handle some Bills, while on the other hand, they want to curtail the Senate, so that if it passes any Bill that concerns counties, then they can veto it and take it to the mediation committee. I have noted mischief. Also, it does not make sense at all to say that this Bill affects counties and the other Bill does not. We are in the same country. There is no Bill that you can say does not affect counties or affects counties. All Bills are the same. They affect counties in one way or another because we are in the same country. So, if you want to legislate the issue of which Bill affects counties and which one does not should not apply. I also find Clause 17 of this Bill very unconstitutional. Clause 17(2) says- “At any joint sitting of the House, the Standing Orders of the National Assembly shall apply with such modifications and variations as the Speaker of the National Assembly may consider necessary or appropriate.” So, what do we do with our Standing Orders in the Senate? They are inalidating the Standing Orders of the Senate; that they are inferior to the Standing Orders of the National Assembly. It goes further to say- “The Speakers of the House of Parliament shall enforce any directions given during a joint sitting in relation to the conduct of a Member of Parliament in accordance with applicable provisions of the National Assembly Standing Orders.” Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, what this implies is that it elevates the Speaker of the National Assembly to someone even above our Speaker; that this Speaker of the National Assembly will have the power to punish a Member of the Senate on a matter that has come up before the joint committee. So, this is unconstitutional and should not see the light of the day. On public participation, this Bill now goes beyond the main objective of managing bicameralism. It goes beyond that by trying to put roadblocks on the public participation. Clause 19(3) says- “A committee of a House of Parliament shall have a broad measure of discretion in conducting public participation on a matter referred for its consideration.”"
}