(-) The Relationship Between the Measures Taken by the Original Bill and the Measures Established in the Passed LawHere, too, there is an amplitude between a law that takes the same measures as the original bill, and a law that uses completely different measures, so that in its current version there is only a novelty (according to Bavli, Shavuot 25:2). The closer we get to the other pole, the more this will tip the scales in the direction of determining that this is a new issue.
- In this latter context, I will note that for obvious reasons, it is appropriate to maintain a higher degree of flexibility in the realm of means than in the realm of purpose (abstract or concrete). I will also note, as a general consideration, that the broader and more complex an arrangement is concerned, which is intended to deal with a more complex issue, the greater the degree of flexibility with respect to all considerations. "After all, a bill in which a complete law is brought, which embraces arrangements and issues for the most part, is not the same as a bill, in which it is proposed to amend a single provision dealing with a specific issue. It is clear that the scope of the 'subject' in the first case will be much wider than the 'subject' in the second case" (Abu Arar, p. 36).
- Thus, in the framework of examining the question of whether amendments made to the bill that passed its first reading deviate from the scope of the subject matter of the original bill, it is necessary to 'compare' the bill with the law as it was actually passed, inter alia, in the following aspects: the purposes intended to promote the arrangement - both on the abstract level and on the concrete level (i.e., the issue that the law deals with or that it is intended to regulate); the scope of the arrangement's application in the dimension of time, from the perspective of the recipients of the norm and in terms of the nature and scope of the regulated behaviors; and the means adopted by the arrangement. As was clarified above, even if the comparison reveals a gap - and even a significant gap - in a certain aspect, it is clear that this is not sufficient for the purpose of determining that the law is invalid; The question is whether an examination of the totality of the considerations shows that the law that was passed does indeed materially deviate from the subject matter of the bill on which it is based.
As noted above, this list of considerations, "It is certainly not exhaustive, nor is it binding" (עניין Kwantinsky, paragraph 80), and it is not sufficient to fully draw the distinguishing line; however, it can be hoped that it will be able to assist all the relevant actors - even from a forward-looking perspective - in interpreting the directive Section 85(a) to the Regulations.
- Before concluding the discussion on this issue, and in order not to imply an erroneous message, I would like to clarify and clarify: as a rule, amendments carried out at the top of the legislative process should not be viewed in a negative light; on the contrary, the opposite is true. Amendments made to a bill, in the framework of the work of the committee that discussed it, are capable of attesting to an in-depth and serious legislative process; to the realization of the principle of participation; and accordingly, also to the actual expression of a law that was passed to the will of the members of Knesset, who represent the citizens who elected them (on the importance of these principles in legislation, see, for example: Kwantinsky, paragraphs 79-60-71; PoorYin Poultry Breeders, p. 81; High Court of Justice 8260/16 The Academic Center for Law and Business v. Knesset of Israel, paragraphs 37-38 [Nevo] (September 6,2017); Itay Bar-Siman-Tov, "The Law of Legislation, " 37 Iyunei Mishpat 645,675 (2016)). The negative light sends its beams to them, only in those cases in which they substantially deviate from the boundaries of the original bill, and therefore also undermine other basic principles of the legislative process (as I will clarify below).