HCJ 10650/03 Abu Gwella et. al v

At the end of June, the Committee’s chair announced that the vote in the Committee
would take place the following day.
As a result of the many references to the minutes of the hearing, they are attached
hereto, marked P/39.
The Committee’s vote
85. On 30 July 2003, the Committee convened to vote on the sections of the bill and on
certain amendments to it. Members wanted to raise objections, but the chair decided
that there would not be any discussion on the objections. In his words:
The majority here are coalition members, and the coalition
intends to pass this bill as it is, without the objections.
(Minutes of the hearing, page 3)
86. Attorney Anna Schneider, the Knesset’s legal advisor, and Attorney Frankel-Shor, the
Committee’s legal advisor, contended that the procedure is to hear the objections in
the Committee at the time of the vote on the bill, and that it should be done that way.
However, the legal advisor stated that, in certain cases, reading of the objections is
moved to the plenum, and that the chair has discretion in this matter. Attorney
Schneider noted that it is significant whether the objections are substantive or
technical; in the former case, use of the Knesset’s normal procedure increases in
importance, and the objections should be debated prior to voting on the bill in
committee.
87. Notwithstanding these opinions, the chair decided not to consider the objections. The
only concession the chair was willing to make in response to the vociferous opposition
to his decision was to grant each of the members with objections to state the objection
to the bill’s sections. In protest, representatives of the opposition left the committee
room.
88. In that the objections – like the proposal to amend the bill that the Committee’s legal
advisor had laid on the table of the Knesset the day before – were not read, the
Committee members were not presented the alternative suggested in these proposals,
which was to add a sentence to the definitions section of the bill, stating that the law
does not apply to children.
89. As a result, the government proposed its own amendment, an addition to Section 3 –
an unclear concluding clause stating that a permit to stay in Israel or a permit to reside
in Israel can be given to avoid the separation of a child under age 12 from his parent
lawfully residing in Israel. This amendment was added following the hearing in the
33