Marathon committee session on ‘reasonableness’ bill enters second day

Explanations of the more than 27,000 reservations submitted against the coalition’s bill to severely limit judicial review continued through the night Monday and throughout Tuesday morning in the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, as part of the opposition’s efforts to stall passage of the controversial legislation.

The explanations were expected to continue until 4 p.m. on Tuesday, after which voting will begin on the reservations against the bill to curb the courts’ use of the “reasonableness” yardstick, which will likely all be rejected by the coalition MKs.

The reservations, or proposed amendments, to the bill will be voted on in batches of 20 due to the unprecedented number submitted against the legislation, in a process that is likely to last into Wednesday.

The bill itself, which comprises just one five-line clause, will then be voted on and almost certainly approved to be sent to the Knesset plenum for its second and third readings, which will pass it into law, likely to take place next week.

An amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary, the bill would ban the courts from invalidating or even discussing government and ministerial decisions, including appointments and dismissals of officials, based on the judicial test of reasonableness, although it would allow for such review over decisions made by professional civil servants.

Labor MK Gilad Kariv of the opposition chastised coalition MKs for failing to be present during the marathon committee session, calling the coalition “a gang of lazy, careless people.”

“We are in a hearing about changing a Basic Law, which would change administrative law. The government and the coalition are crassly trampling the judicial system, and the partners in this process don’t even bother to come to the hearing for the explanations [of the reservations]” said Kariv on Tuesday.

United Torah Judaism MK Yaakov Asher of the coalition, who was serving as stand-in committee chair for the evening, said, “I feel the pain of the opposition members. I am pained that you are pained. But you see reality too much in black and white.”

During the course of the hearing, Likud MK Hanoch Milwidsky, also of the coalition, repeated assertions he and others have made in the past that during compromise negotiations over the government’s broader judicial overhaul program, agreement was reached over the issue of reasonableness.

“There were very, very broad agreements on the need to reduce the use of the reasonableness standard so that it would not apply to the government or ministers,” said Milwidsky.

He also said that regarding the broader overhaul plan, he believed that the idea of passing a law allowing for the Knesset to override the High Court of Justice if it strikes down legislation, or make legislation immune from High Court review in the first place, “won’t happen.”

He said, however, that it was possible that some arrangement might be drawn up to allow a specific law to be immunized from judicial review with a special majority, but did not clarify further.

Milvidsky added that he believed the coalition would try and change the status of government legal advisers. Reducing the authority of such officials is another central goal of the government’s judicial overhaul push.

The coalition argues that use of the reasonableness standard constitutes elevating the judgment of unelected judges over the policies of the government and elected officials, and gives the courts too broad a scope for judicial intervention in policy decisions.

Opponents of the bill argue that it is a blunt tool that will open the door to corruption and reduce scrutiny of elected officials when making sensitive decisions, including those impacting civil rights.