Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 800424,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/800424/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 244,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "regulations change after 10 years, but the Act lives forever. Therefore, in my opinion, we should define it the way we want or according to the Retirement Benefits Act. Looking at page No.93 of the Bill, it is stated that “sponsor” means an employer or any other body who makes contributions on behalf of a member. I understand that. However, in the context of this Bill, I think that should change to the county government as the employer in this case. This is because this is a County Governments’ Retirement Scheme Bill. On the same page, Clause 3 states- “This Act applies to all eligible employees of the County Governments and Associated Organisations.” We need to define the associated organisations. Who are they exactly? If left that way, we will open a box that we cannot define. Madam Temporary Speaker, Part III of the Bill, Clause 7(1)(d)states that- “There is established the Board of Trustees of the scheme who shall comprise of- (d) two Trustees nominated by trade union umbrellas representing public servants;” Trustees are people who have the interest of the members at heart. Therefore, the two trustees nominated by union umbrellas should be a union for county governments and not anybody else. We do not want the Central Organization of Trade Unions (COTUs) of this world to come and hijack this process and this ends up facing the same fate as the one of the National Social Security Fund (NSSF). That is why I insist that we should specify instead of leaving it as it is. Madam Temporary Speaker, Clause 11 of the Bill says a trustee may be removed from office for reasons that are listed there. I would like them to add one more reason on that list, to be no.(g), and read “for any other reasons as prescribed by the RBA Act.” That is important because there might be other reasons why someone needs to be removed from office that is much stronger but miss it. Clause 14 of the Bill lists the responsibilities of the Board from (a) to (h). They should also add the last responsibility to read as prescribed by the RBA Act. Clause 15(3)(b) states that the Board shall have power to appoint a custodian, fund manager and administrator. An actuary needs to be added to that list. This is because you need an actuary at every given time in any retirement benefit scheme for you to know that even the fund managers who are supposed to invest the money are doing the right thing. They give awareness. They are very good for the trustees to perform their duties well. This scheme also needs to be defined as much as the Chairperson of the Committee on Labour and Social Welfare has said that this is a defined contribution other than the existing. That needs to come out very clearly. I was going through this Bill and I do not remember seeing any of that. In Clause 17 on Page 98, the trustee shall be paid remuneration or allowance as may be determined. In my view, instead of remuneration, because all the money that will be paid comes out of the pension scheme, we should just give the trustee only seating allowance; not remuneration. This is because that money will be lost to the--- Pay the The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}