Knesset Legal Adviser Sagit Afik called Wednesday for deliberations on Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi’s controversial media overhaul bill to be transferred from the special committee created to advance it back to the Knesset’s Economic Affairs Committee, warning that the current proceedings no longer meet the basic requirements of a proper legislative process.
The demand followed a heated committee session on Monday, in which chair Likud MK Galit Distel-Atbaryan barred the panel’s legal staff from speaking, triggering a shouting match and the ejection of opposition lawmakers. Afik said in her letter that she had instructed the legal advisers to leave that meeting after they were prevented from presenting their professional position.
The episode has become the latest flashpoint in mounting concerns among Knesset legal officials and opposition lawmakers that coalition leaders are increasingly bypassing parliamentary procedure, curtailing debate, mistreating legal advisers, and disregarding professional legal advice to accelerate controversial legislation.
The bill would give the government significant control over broadcast media, news sites and other media by establishing a new regulatory council, with a majority of members chosen by the communications minister, that would have an array of authorities over broadcast media, including the ability to issue hefty fines.
The legislation has drawn sharp opposition from both the committee’s professional legal staff and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, who have warned that the current draft undermines press freedom and allows for political interference in media.
In a sharply worded letter to Distel-Atbaryan, Afik rejected the chair’s claim that the committee’s legal advisers were responsible for “the many problems with the bill and its deliberations,” and said that “the committee’s conduct itself has created these problems, through the failure to receive answers from government bodies, the failure to transfer data, and the failure to make decisions on key issues alongside the accelerated reading of the bill.”
Afik said it has become clear that “even the basic conditions of a proper legislative process are not being met” and reiterated her position that “a proper legislative process requires deliberation on the entire bill in the committee authorized to do so — the Economic Affairs Committee.”
The panel under Distel-Atbaryan was established to bypass that committee because of opposition to the bill by its chair, Likud MK David Bitan, who previously blocked Karhi’s bill to shut down the Kan public broadcaster.
Afik warned that the management of the new committee and its disregard for Knesset procedure reflected a notable “weakening” of the Knesset’s “authority and powers.”
Her sharp criticism of the legal process makes it far more likely that any legislation passed by the special committee will eventually be annulled by the High Court of Justice.
A larger battle
Distel-Atbaryan has framed the dispute not as a procedural disagreement but as part of a broader struggle between the government and legal authorities, repeatedly accusing the committee’s legal staff of siding with the attorney general to block the coalition’s media reforms.
Speaking before the committee on Wednesday, after Afik issued her letter, Distel-Atbaryan flatly dismissed her call to transfer deliberations away from her panel.
“The legal adviser’s recommendation is not acceptable to me. I will continue to lead this committee,” she said.
“Because I am not willing to hand over all control of the media to [Attorney General] Baharav-Miara, today I received a letter instructing that the law be moved to the Economic Affairs Committee,” Distel-Atbaryan said.
The chair has repeatedly accused the panel’s legal staff of deliberately delaying proceedings because she refused to adopt their recommendations, including during the Monday confrontation that prompted Afik’s intervention, when she announced that she would not allow scheduled debates to be prolonged or “filibustered.”
When the committee’s legal advisers attempted to speak, she repeatedly silenced them.
“From the moment we didn’t accept comments on the draft — which completely ignored our agenda, our worldview and the position of the minister that was democratically elected — the committee’s legal advisers placed the council under the wing of the attorney general,” Distel-Atbaryan said then.
“Your opinions aren’t relevant here,” she told the legal staff, accusing them of “acting against me and delaying the discussions.”
The Knesset and the committee’s legal advisers have rejected Distel-Atbaryan’s accusations, saying their role is limited to ensuring the bill complies with the law. They’ve repeatedly stated that the government’s decision to advance the bill without first resolving its many legal issues — work that is typically completed before a bill reaches the Knesset precisely to avoid prolonged deliberations — has forced such a legal review to be conducted alongside the legislative process.
After being repeatedly silenced, a member of the committee’s legal advisery team said, “We see that there is no need for legal advisers here. We’re leaving,” and the team exited amid shouts from lawmakers.
When opposition lawmakers demanded that the legal advisers be allowed to speak, Distel-Atbaryan had them all ejected.
Despite the absence of legal advisers and opposition members, the committee continued its deliberations, in direct violation of Knesset procedure.
Following the episode, committee member and Democrats MK Efrat Rayten wrote to Afik, urging her to intervene in the management of the committee, warning that the panel was being conducted “in a manner that deliberately ignores professional legal guidance and prevents lawmakers from raising substantive legal concerns or presenting alternative positions” and that the committee effectively operates as a “rubber stamp” for the government.
She argued that lawmakers are routinely prevented from participating in the legislative process, including asking questions or expressing criticism of the bill, and that the chair functions merely as “an extension of the government rather than as an impartial mediator between the branches of government.”
“The discussions are losing all semblance of parliamentary independence,” she wrote.
Source:
www.timesofisrael.com
