Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 853064,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/853064/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 219,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Suba South, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. John Mbadi",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 110,
        "legal_name": "John Mbadi Ng'ong'o",
        "slug": "john-mbadi"
    },
    "content": "this Bill or reject it. My opposition to this Bill is because we passed a similar Bill a few days ago. Therefore, there is no need of engaging in another Bill and that is the point I am trying to bring out. If my colleagues cared to listen, they would understand why we are wasting our valuable time in debating a Bill that we should not debate in the first place. I will read the functions of the board from both Bills. The current Bill says: “(a) formulate the policies relating to the scheme in accordance with the provisions of Retirement Benefits Act.” The other Bill says, “(a) formulate the policies relating to the scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Retirement Benefits Act, 1997.” The only difference is “1997”. “(b) Collect contributions and income payable to the Fund under this Act.” The other one says “(b) Collect contributions and income payable to the funds under this Act.” It goes on to say “(c) Pay out the various benefits to persons entitled to the benefits as provided under the Act.” The other one also says, “(c) Pay out the various benefits to persons entitled to the benefits as provided under the Act.” “(d) Protect the fund’s assets. The other one also says, “(d) Protect the fund’s assets.” In fact, they are eight functions in both with the same wordings, uplifted from one Bill to another. If you go further to see the other provisions in this Act on the administration of the scheme, this is what the current Bill says: “The board shall appoint fund managers of the scheme who shall in addition to the duties prescribed under the Retirement Benefits Act to do the following: (a) implement the investment policy of the scheme as provided by the board.” The other one also says, “The board shall appoint a fund manager of the scheme who shall in addition to the duties prescribed under the Retirement Benefits Act (a) implement the investment policy of the scheme as approved by the Board; (b) Invest the scheme funds and assets in accordance with the provisions of the Retirement Benefits Act and investment policy of the Board; (c) Manage the scheme funds and assets in accordance with the provisions of the Retirement Benefits Act.” We are literally legislating twice in this House. This is the same thing. I will go on to talk about appointment and functions of custodians. It is word for word from the Bill we passed. In a nutshell, I can go on and on. The question I want to ask is: Why is it so difficult in having those amendments which we think are important and were left out in the first Bill taken to the Senate? We have legislators, each one of us here has a Senator. Why not take these amendments to the Senator coming from your county to debate in the Senate? If the Senate will not have looked at them…"
}