It was the same story for the former lands cabinet secretary Charity Ngilu who won comfortably. Margaret Kamar was unsuccessful in when she vied for the same seat.
Susan Kihika was also unsuccessful in when she vied for a parliamentary seat. She was the Nakuru County Assembly Speaker before joining the senate race. Women have had no elected representation in the Senate but were appointed based on party seat numbers. The Senate consists of 68 seats with 47 elected and 21 appointed including the 16 women, 2 from disabled groups, 2 representing male and female youth and a speaker.
Welcome to Africanews Please select your experience. Immediately after the approval of the Division of Revenue Bill, the Senate is charged with considering, deliberating and voting on the County Allocation of Revenue Bill which divides revenue allocated to the county level of government amongst the counties using the formula developed by the Senate every five years as per the provisions of Article of the Constitution.
Review of any Bills dealing with sharing of revenue or any financial matter concerning County Governments. The Senate also considers recommendations made by the Commission on Revenue Allocation regarding provisions of any Bill dealing with sharing of revenue or any financial matter concerning County Governments as per the provisions of Article of the Constitution.
The Senate plays a pivotal role in the process of impeaching the following State officers-. The Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Senate. The process of impeaching the President is outlined in Article of the Constitution.
The Senate is required to investigate allegations for impeachment of the President and resolve if they have been substantiated. The Senate may by resolution constitute a Special Committee of eleven Senators to investigate the allegations. If the Special Committee of the Senate finds that the allegations have been substantiated, then the Senate shall -.
If at least two-thirds of all Senators vote to uphold any impeachment charge, the President ceases to hold office. Deputy President. The process of impeaching the Deputy President is outlined in Article of the Constitution. The Senate is required to investigate allegations for impeachment of the Deputy President and resolve if they have been substantiated. The Senate, by resolution, may appoint a Special Committee of eleven Senators to investigate the allegations.
If the Special Committee of the Senate finds that the allegations have been substantiated then the Senate shall -. If at least two-thirds of all Senators vote to uphold any impeachment charge, the Deputy President ceases to hold office. Speaker and Deputy Speaker. Article 2 c gives the Senate the power to remove the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker from office if it passes a resolution supported by at least two-thirds of its members. The process of impeaching the Governor is outlined in Article of the Constitution and section 33 of the County Governments Act.
The Senate is required to investigate allegations for impeachment of the Governor and resolve if they have been substantiated. If the Special Committee of the Senate or the Senate sitting in Plenary finds that the allegations have been substantiated then the Senate shall -. If the Majority of Senators vote to uphold the impeachment charge, the Governor ceases to hold office.
The Attorney-General subsequently took a point of order to this effect in the Senate, but no ruling was made in response to the point of order, and the notice of motion to disallow the regulations in question was withdrawn. A contrary opinion presented by Senate officers was that, just as invalid instruments may be repealed, they may also be disallowed by a House of the Parliament, either of those actions, repeal or disallowance, having the effect of terminating the existence of the invalid instruments.
Changes to the statutory framework in raised the possibility of the Senate disallowing instruments that had technically been repealed. The Legislative Instruments Amendment Sunsetting Measures Act inserted a new Part 3 of Chapter 3 of the Legislation Act, Repeal of spent legislative instruments, notifiable instruments and provisions. These provisions provide, in effect, for the automatic repeal of amending or repealing instruments once they have achieved their effect.
This occurs on the day after the last of the provisions commences, or the registration of the instrument, whichever is the later. This creates the possibility that an instrument may have been repealed before it is even tabled but the tabling requirements and disallowance powers of the Houses are not affected. There are some forms of subordinate legislation with different approval or disallowance procedures. Some instruments require affirmative resolutions of both Houses to bring them into effect, while others do not take effect until the period for disallowance has passed.
Some involve a combination of both methods. Disallowance motions in the Senate may be based on recommendations of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, which have been, without exception, adopted by the Senate. That committee's practice has also been followed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights which has used the disallowance process to highlight its concerns with particular instruments. Disallowance motions may be moved other than at the initiation of the committee, and are often motivated by opposition to the policy manifested by the delegated legislation.
Disallowance may also be on the basis that the matter should be addressed by legislation. On 3 February , pursuant to notice, a senator moved a motion to disallow an instrument of delegated legislation guidelines for eligible child care centres , identical in terms to a motion to disallow the same instrument which was negatived on 8 December Even if the terms of a motion are the same as one previously determined, the motion almost invariably has a different effect because of changed circumstances and therefore is not the same motion.
There may also be different grounds for moving the same motion again. This consideration arises particularly in relation to delegated legislation. A senator may move to disallow an instrument of delegated legislation on policy grounds, and the Regulations and Ordinances Committee may give notice of a motion to disallow the same instrument on grounds related to the committee's criteria of scrutiny; the two motions are regarded as entirely separate, and the determination of one does not affect the other.
Moreover, it could be argued that the same question rule could not prevent the operation of the relevant statutory provisions, which provide for disallowance subject only to the statutory time limit for giving notice. Therefore any disallowance motion may operate and operate automatically if not withdrawn or determined provided only that notice of it is given within the statutory time.
Having given a notice for a disallowance motion, a senator cannot be compelled to move the motion before the day for which the notice is given.
While the statutory provisions refer to notice being given of a motion for disallowance, the Senate may disallow tabled regulations without notice if standing orders are suspended to do so. The Senate may also suspend standing orders to enable a notice of motion of disallowance, having effect for that day, to be given and the motion then moved.
This occurred on 20 June when a special meeting of the Senate was held, at the request of an absolute majority of senators, in order to have the opportunity to move for disallowance of certain postal and telephone regulations. Murphy, moved:. That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent a Notice of Motion from being now given by Senator Murphy, and having effect for this day, for the disallowance of the Regulations contained in Statutory Rules , Nos.
The motion being agreed to, Senator Murphy then gave notice of motion for the disallowance of the regulations. Then he moved, pursuant to that notice, that the regulations be disallowed, which motion was agreed to.
Given that notice is not necessary, this elaborate procedure need not be followed and a motion may be moved by leave. A legislative instrument not laid before each House within 6 sitting days after registration ceases to have effect. In , Senator Spicer, the then Chairman of the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee, prepared a memorandum on the subject with the aim of determining the practice which should be followed by the Senate. His memorandum concluded:.
An analysis of the judgments in this case ie. Dignan's case discloses, therefore, that only two of the five Judges committed themselves to the view that the regulations need not be laid before the House before disallowance, but a majority of the Court, including the two Judges referred to, held that the regulations had been effectively laid before the House, by reason of the motion under S.
In these circumstances the question whether disallowance will be effective in a case in which a regulation has not been laid before the House at all is still an open one as far as the High Court is concerned. Any doubt on the matter can be avoided if motions for disallowance are not moved before regulations are laid before the House either by a member of the Executive or by order of the Senate, and this would seem to be ample justification for continuing to follow that procedure.
Although Dignan's case was decided under section 10 of the Acts Interpretation Act , which has since been repealed by the Act of No. It seems to me that the views I have expressed above are as applicable to the new section as to the section which was under consideration in Dignan's case. In support of his contention that notice of disallowance should be given subsequent to the tabling of the regulations and within fifteen sitting days of such tabling, Senator Spicer instanced the speeches of ministers, the submissions of counsel for the government, and the judgment of at least one High Court Judge Dr H.
In Senator Puplick gave notice of a motion to disallow regulations before they were tabled. In a disallowance motion was moved by leave immediately after a minister, in response to a resolution of the Senate, tabled the regulations in question.
Notice of a motion to disallow the same regulations, given before the regulations were tabled, was withdrawn. A motion to disallow or disapprove any regulation or other instrument subject to disallowance or disapproval by either House is placed on the Notice Paper as Business of the Senate. As such, it takes precedence over Government and General Business for the day on which it is set down for consideration.
This procedure further strengthens the Senate in exercising the power of disallowance, and ensures that disallowance motions are given appropriate attention. The Notice Paper indicates the number of sitting days remaining within which a motion for disallowance must be disposed of before the instrument will be deemed to have been disallowed. There is a precedent for the consideration of the disallowance of regulations in committee of the whole. In addition, each regulation could be considered seriatim.
To be effective, any resolution of the committee of the whole would have to be adopted by the Senate, on report. The following principles apply to amendment of notices of motion for disallowance and amendment of disallowance motions after they are moved:. On 14 November a motion of disallowance was amended by leave to confine it to a lesser number of regulations.
President Lynch, for the reasons submitted, ruled the amendment not in order. This ruling was not correct and has not since been followed. Notice had been given of a motion for the disallowance of the whole of the regulations, and the notice extended to any of the regulations. A court would probably have held the proposed motion for disallowance, as amended, to be lawful, given the view of Dignan v Australian Steamships Pty Ltd 45 CLR , that the provision as to notice is directory and not imperative.
Thus on 26 May a motion was moved for disallowance of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory and an amendment proposed to limit the disallowance to sections 10 and For a case of a disallowance motion amended by leave to restrict its scope, and an amendment moved to expand its scope within the original notice, see Parliamentary Entitlements Amendment Regulations. Although there is at least one precedent, in , for an amendment to a notice of motion for disallowance to reduce its scope by means of a letter under standing order 77, this practice is not followed because a senator who wishes to support the disallowance of certain regulations, for example, may find that a notice has been amended so that it no longer covers those regulations without the senator being aware of the amendment.
This problem potentially arises regardless of whether the time for giving notice has expired. Therefore, when a senator wishes to amend a notice of motion to reduce its scope, this is done by way of giving notice of intention to amend the notice, similar to the notice of intention under standing order If the time for giving notice has not expired, another senator can then give a fresh notice to cover the particular items the senator wishes to disallow.
If the time for giving notice has expired, another senator can take over the notice in so far as it relates to such items. An example of a notice of motion to disallow extended in scope when the time limit for giving notice had not expired occurred on 28 April when Senator Harradine, pursuant to standing order 77, amended an original notice to extend its scope.
On 24 June , Senator Wright gave notice of her intention to withdraw a notice for disallowance of a full regulation, at the same time giving a fresh notice to disallow a part of it, as she was still within the time limit. Words may be added to a disallowance motion to give reasons for disallowance. If a senator, having given notice of a motion for disallowance, seeks to withdraw the notice, provision is made for another senator to take over the motion, thus averting the possibility that the Senate could be denied an opportunity of considering disallowance where the time for giving notice has passed.
Standing order 78 provides:. These provisions ensure that the right of any senator to move disallowance is not lost by the withdrawal of a notice. Senators have taken over disallowance motions from the Regulations and Ordinances Committee on numerous occasions. Where a senator wishes to withdraw a notice of motion for disallowance on the last day for resolving the notice and there is not time for notice of intention to withdraw to be given, the notice may be withdrawn by leave, but only after senators present have an opportunity to take over the notice.
A disallowance motion may be brought on early by leave and then withdrawn pursuant to notice of intention. A notice of intention to withdraw a disallowance motion has the effect of postponing a notice which would otherwise be called on earlier to the time of intended withdrawal, unless another senator takes over the notice before that time, in which case it is called on at its due time.
A notice of motion for disallowance which was not regarded as effective because it was given before the regulations concerned were tabled was withdrawn without notice or leave. An unusual resolution was passed on 30 June on the motion of the chair of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee to allow the committee to withdraw from the Notice Paper a notice of motion for the disallowance of certain Industrial Relations Court Rules during the winter long adjournment of the Senate.
As explained above, this provision prohibits the making of delegated legislation the same in substance as legislation which is the subject of an unresolved disallowance motion. Standing order 83 2 provides that a motion not moved when the notice is called on is withdrawn. If, however, a senator declines to move a disallowance motion when the notice is called on in the circumstance, for example, of the Senate rejecting a motion by the senator to postpone it , it is not withdrawn under standing order 83 2 until other senators have an opportunity to take it over and move it in accordance with standing order On the senator declining to move the motion when the notice is called on, the chair designates either a time on the next day of sitting or a time later in the sitting depending on whether it is the last day for resolving the matter by which the notice will be withdrawn if no other senator takes it over.
A senator taking over a disallowance notice in these circumstances is entitled to specify a future day for moving the motion, provided that that day is within the statutory time limit for resolving the notice. Standing order 78 is regarded as applying to any disallowance-type provision even if it does not strictly fall within the language of the standing order.
Thus leave was required to withdraw a notice of motion to amend disability standards under the Disability Discrimination Act , the standards being subject to amendment and approval provisions inserted into the statute by amendment by the Senate. As has been noted above, the Legislation Act, s. As explained in Chapter 7, either of those occurrences terminates the business before the Senate, including notices of motion.
An unresolved disallowance notice, however, results in the instrument in question being deemed to be tabled again on the first sitting day of the next session, so that disallowance action may start afresh. Section 48 of the Legislation Act provides: [update: A safeguard in the disallowance process is that a legislative instrument may not be remade within 6 months of its disallowance without the approval of the House which disallowed it.
For instance, until the section 48 of the Legislation Act provided:]. Although in its earlier form the provision purported to require the Senate to rescind the original disallowance resolution, in fact such a motion was entirely prospective in permitting a new instrument to be made: see Chapter 9, under Rescission or resolutions and orders. Although the meaning of the term appeared settled by Victorian Chamber of Manufactures v the Commonwealth 67 CLR at , this interpretation was not followed by the Federal Court in in dismissing an application for a ruling of invalidity in respect of the Family Law Fees Amendment Measures No.
The regulation was challenged on the basis that it was the same in substance as Schedule 2 of the Federal Courts Legislation Amendment Fees Regulaton disallowed by the Senate less than 6 months earlier. The statute was amended in to include the provision that a disallowed regulation was not to be remade unless the resolution of disallowance was rescinded. Introducing the amending legislation to the Senate, the Acting Attorney-General Senator McLachlan recalled the events of the previous year relating to the disallowance of regulations and the reenactment of others which were substantially the same.
Those circumstances were the subject of an address to Governor-General Isaacs requesting that he refuse to sanction further regulations, during the then session, being the same in substance as those already disallowed. The standing orders were also amended in to ensure that the general rule that the same question is not to be again proposed during the same session should not operate to prevent the proposal of a motion for the disallowance of an instrument substantially the same as one previously disallowed during the same session.
Motions to allow the remaking of delegated legislation disallowed by the Senate usually arise from the complex character of that legislation: the Senate is often not able to disallow provisions regarded as objectionable without also striking down some acceptable provisions.
On 9 March the government withdrew a notice of motion to permit the remaking of Aviation Transport Security Amendment Regulations which the Senate disallowed on 10 September , the six month moratorium on remaking regulations the same in substance having expired.
After agreement was reached to remake the instrument, the government introduced a bill to remove the associated consultation requirements. This was the first time that the Senate had passed a resolution to approve the remaking of a disallowed instrument since subsection 48 2 was amended in See under Disallowance, above, for disallowance of instruments already disallowed, repealed or invalidated, and repetition of the same disallowance motion.
For an analysis of the same question rule, see Chapter 9, Motions and Amendments, under that heading. See also that chapter for an analysis of the meaning of rescission, and the point that motions to permit the remaking of delegated legislation are not technically rescission motions, having only prospective effect. The disallowance of an instrument which repeals, in whole or in part, an earlier instrument revives the repealed provision from and including the date of disallowance of the repealing instrument.
0コメント