(-) The relationship between the issue that the bill is intended to deal with and the issue that the law that was passed: In examining the claim of a 'new subject', it is appropriate to examine whether, after the amendments made to it, the law regulates or deals with the same issue that the bill sought to deal with, or whether it deals with a different but similar issue that is essentially connected, with a completely different issue, and so on. We are dealing with, in a different formulation, the concrete, practical purpose - as opposed to the abstract value that the law seeks to promote. This consideration is of course connected to a consideration that deals with the purpose of the law, but is not contained in it, knowing that legislative purposes are formulated, at times, at a very high level of abstraction, and may be adapted to completely different arrangements that deal with a variety of problems (technically, it is possible to combine the two considerations for the purpose of examination, but it is also possible that it is not; I do not see this as of great importance, one way or the other). Thus, for example, for the sake of illustration, it is possible to think that the general purpose of 'protecting public health' can serve as the basis for an arrangement whose concrete purpose is to prevent the spread of the coronavirus (see: High Court of Justice 5469/20 National Responsibility - Israel My House v. Government of Israel [Nevo] (4.4.2021)); for an arrangement whose concrete purpose is to encourage the vaccination of children (see: High Court of Justice 7245/10 Adalah - The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel v. Ministry of Social Affairs [Nevo] (4.6.2013)); and an arrangement whose purpose is to reduce the damage caused by smoking (High Court of Justice 2951/19 The Multi-Sectoral Initiative for the Eradication of Smoking v. the Israeli Knesset [Nevo] (26.11.2019)).
(-) The ratio between the scope of the application of the arrangement according to the bill and the scope of the application of the law that was passedIn this context, it is possible to think, inter alia, of three levels of applicability - applicability In time, for example, the transformation of a bill that passed its first reading as a temporary provision into a permanent law (on the fact that this change, in and of itself, does not necessarily imply that it is a 'new issue', at least not one that creates a defect that goes to the root of the proceeding, see: High Court of Justice 5160/99 The Movement for Quality Government in Israel v. Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, IsrSC 35(4) 92,95 (1999)); Applicability in terms of Norm Recipients, for example, extending an order intended to apply to a particular group to other groups, or reducing an order intended to have general application so that it applies to a particular group; and applicability in terms of The nature and scope of regulated behaviors. Obviously, the greater the difference in the scope of application on each level, the greater the tendency to view the amendment that was added as a 'new issue'.