Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 903195,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/903195/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 240,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Sakaja",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13131,
        "legal_name": "Johnson Arthur Sakaja",
        "slug": "johnson-arthur-sakaja"
    },
    "content": "Lords, the Upper House at that time, objected a budget. There is no other legal reason. In the copy and paste nature of many of our Commonwealth parliaments, we just took that position. In view of this context, when time comes to amend our Constitution, we may consider whether it is necessary to retain Article 114 as it is. The reason is that there is no legal framework on how the Speakers of both Houses may enforce the concurrence on the Bills presented to both Houses of Parliament and how that aspiration and provision in the Constitution should be implemented. It is against this background that we have made proposals. We have also taken into account the proposals made by the Supreme Court in its 2013 Advisory Opinion. The principal object of the Bill is to give effect to Article 110(3) of the Constitution which provides that: ―Before either House considers a Bill, the Speakers of the National Assembly and Senate shall jointly resolve any question as to whether it is a Bill concerning counties and, if it is, whether it is a special or an ordinary Bill.‖ We have provided a framework in this Bill. I will take you through some of the clauses through which both Houses can resolve issues on other Bills that concern counties. The procedure for dispute resolution is provided in this Bill. The Bill also provides for concurrence and consequences for non-concurrence because there might be non-concurrence on a Bill. Allow me to highlight the salient provisions and why we felt they are necessary. I will start with the concurrence procedure that the Bill proposes and the interpretation to Bills concerning counties and money Bills. In Clause 5, the Speaker of the House where a Bill originates must seek the concurrence of the Speaker of the other House as to whether the Bill concerns counties in compliance with Article 110(3). Further, the Speaker from whom concurrence is sought must respond within seven days, failure to which the Bill is read a First Time in the originating House. This is to avoid situations where we have seen correspondence being ignored in both Houses. It will ensure that the legislative business of one House is not unduly delayed by the failure of the Speaker of the other House to respond to a request for concurrence. So, if there is no response in seven days, the Bill proceeds. In Clause 6, we have provided that where the Speakers of both Houses fail to concur on the nature of a Bill, then they shall refer the Bill to a Joint Committee established to determine the nature of the Bill. Each Speaker shall appoint three Members. So, there will be three Members of the National Assembly and three Members of the Senate to sit in a joint committee. That is not a standing committee, but an ad hoc committee that will be established only for the purposes of a specific Bill in anticipation of the fact that with the guidance that the Bill will be intended to provide, the disputes will be few and far between. Therefore, a standing committee will not be necessary because we do not anticipate that there will always be a dispute. We believe that if the Speakers establish the mechanism of responding within seven days, they will resolve the question of the nature of Bills. Clause 7(1) states that: 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."
}