Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 903194,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/903194/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 239,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Sakaja",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13131,
        "legal_name": "Johnson Arthur Sakaja",
        "slug": "johnson-arthur-sakaja"
    },
    "content": "An obligation is placed on the two speakers, where they cannot agree between themselves to engage mediation a mechanism‖ The Supreme Court went on to say that they would each be required to appoint an equal number of Members who will deliberate upon the question and file the report within a specified period of time. It had also proposed that the two Chambers could establish a standing mediation committee that exists in perpetuity throughout the term of Parliament to deliberate upon and resolve any dispute regarding the path of legislation to be adopted for different subject matter. Efforts to pursue the proposed mechanism were not successful. In that spirit, whenever the Speakers fail to agree on any matter relating to the nature of a Bill, the Speaker of the Senate would invite - this used to happen - the Speaker of The National Assembly to form a joint mediation committee, but the Speaker of the National Assembly would always ignore. These requests were never acceded to in the last Parliament. In addition to the challenges I have highlighted on the matter of the interpretation of what is a Bill concerning counties, there has been differing opinions on what a money Bill is and how to approach such matters. On a number of occasions during the concurrence process on whether a Bill concerns counties has envisaged under Article 110 of the Constitution, the Speaker of the National Assembly has objected to the origination of certain Bills in the Senate on the basis that they are money Bills. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, why are money Bills considered only in the National Assembly? This is a question that we must ask ourselves. It is provided for in our Constitution and it is a feature in most bicameral commonwealth jurisdictions. However, the House would benefit from the research that Sen. Mutula Kilonzo Jnr. and I undertook. From our research, in United Kingdom (UK), we found that the concept of a money Bill was introduced following the rejection of the 1909 Budget. The House of Commons sought to establish its formal dominance over the House of Lords which had broken the convention by opposing the budget. We found that the law was introduced following the rejection of the 1909 Budget in the United Kingdom (UK). The House of Commons sought to establish its dominance over the House of Lords which had broken convention by opposing the Budget in 1909. A Parliament Act that governed the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords which looked at preventing a recurrence of the budget problems was then enacted in 1911. That law was largely opposed in the House of Lords and a cross-party discussion to unlock that failed. After a second General Election in December, 1911, the Act was passed with the support of the Monarch at that time called King George V who threatened to create liberal peers to overcome the conservative majority. The Act effectively removed the right of the House of Lords to introduce and to veto money Bills completely. The position and experience in most Commonwealth bicameral parliaments on origination of money Bills is traced to that British experience. So, there was no fundamental or concrete reason as to why the Senate should not consider money Bills. We just copied a tradition which started in 1909 in the UK just because the House of The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}