Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 853070,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/853070/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 225,
    "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": " Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, you know, I am not killing this Bill but contributing. Hon. Serem is a second term MP, I think I saw him here in the last Parliament. Even if he is a first term MP, he should know this because it is now over one year. I am sure Hon. Jared Okelo will not make the same mistake he is making today. I am making my contribution on whether this Bill deserves the attention we are giving it or not. He will have his opportunity to explain to this House why we should legislate the same provisions twice. I am not referring this House to the Senate. I am saying it would make more sense for anyone who has issues or additional information to take them to Senate. That is why we have two chambers. Senate will pass those amendments and bring them back to this House for concurrence. In fact, it will be an easy way of dealing with this Bill again in this House. Secondly, we still have another option where, in the event that the Senate is not going to consider the provisions that we are talking about, which I still do not know anyway, then immediately the Bill is assented to and it becomes law, you have a period of six months after which you can now bring substantive amendments. In fact, you can even change the title of the Act, if you so wish. At that time, we would consider exhaustively and completely all these amendments that were required, which I even do not know up to now. I was listening to the Mover and the Seconder and did not really hear anything so different from what we passed, unless now someone just wants to mischievously hide some information in this Bill that this House probably did not attend to or what they failed to realise in the other Bill. To me, I think this is actually an abuse of the parliamentary process. If this House would allow something like this to continue, even in future, after a Bill has been passed and I know I have six months within which I cannot bring another amendment to that Bill, I would just bring another Bill with similar contents but just change the title and pretend and mislead the House that I have brought a different Bill. This is very untidy and I urge that this House rejects this Bill now in entirety unless we are convinced otherwise and have those very good amendments, if there are there, by Hon. Njagagua. Hon. Njagagua is a very good friend of mine. I know he is someone who listens a lot. He is also a very experienced legislator. Hon. Njagagua, I am very much willing to support your amendments but the process through which they are being brought to this House, to me, looks mischievous. I know he had very good intentions because as a matter of fact his Bill came first. There should have been debate between his Bill and Hon. Duale’s Bill to agree on an abridged version. In fact, the person who has let us down is the Chair of the Departmental Committee on Finance and National Planning. The Chair of Departmental Committee on Finance and National Planning should have looked at these two Bills way before. Why could they not marry these two Bills? This is not the first time we are dealing with two similar pieces of legislation. These could have been married through a Report."
}