Knesset Speaker Menachem Savador:

I hereby open the Knesset sitting, which will be dedicated to a discussion on the Knesset itself. I will make use of the prerogative that allows the Knesset Speaker to speak his mind at the opening of the discussion.

Members of the Knesset, the Knesset’s 35th birthday is celebrated on the year that is referred to as “Orwellian,” and it is natural that we are all blessed by the fact that the grim prophecy of Orwell did not come to life, and that the nightmare has been lifted from humankind that it would be destroyed by the monstrous regime of the “Big Brother”.

We in Israel are entitled to satisfaction and encouragement from our stabilized democratic-parliamentary rule. It stood firm before six stormy wars and in the face of social and economic turbulences, and maintained personal freedom, the freedom of expression, and the rule of law. We can be proud that our state is among the 36 states of the free world, which hold firmly onto democratic multi-party regimes.

From his article in the “Times,” before the publication of his book “1984”, we can learn that Orwell believed that the old leadership and the older generation, who were driven by liberal tradition and acted on moral ethics, will not give up on their past to their enemy. Nevertheless, he feared of the future, for that the younger generation of his time was infected, in his opinion, with totalitarian thought and wishes for a strong rule and leadership, or preferring economic equality in a concentrated economy over personal freedom. Given this background, we need not accept it as an axiom that the parliamentary rule in our country is guaranteed due to inertia. We must invest our all in education, propaganda, and the raising of the Knesset’s image, by being persistent with behavioral norms and cultured discussion that will serve as an example for the people.

We must not stay indifferent to those cynics of the media who send poisonous arrows that may damage – on purpose or by mistake – the walls of the democracy; and we are all obligated to take part in a comprehensive educational effort, so that the younger generation and future generations maintain with emotional persistence the assets of democracy we deposit with them. They need to hold onto the truth, even when it may collide with the sanctity of other ideas.

A majority of the members of the house and members of the political leadership of the country, who took part in the establishment of the renewed State of Israel and the shaping of its image, look on with pain and disappointment at the negative changes in our society, on sacred values that are being trampled, and even disappearing. If this is truly so, Members of the Knesset, who is able to guarantee that the values of a free and multi-party rule will continue to exist in the next generation, if we will not be able to provide the youth with fortifications that will maintain the democracy in all aspects of our lives?

Moreover: Alongside our satisfaction and pride at our being a free parliament, we need to rise and voice ourselves over the trampling of human rights in many countries across the world, when hundreds of millions of people – a majority of the humankind – are being prosecuted, murdered, slaughtered and discriminated against on the basis of ethnicity and religion, under the rule of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. We must upset the free world and awake it from its indifference to this bitter reality.

And now I will turn to our own prosaic internal problems: At the end of this session we will be marking the third year of our term, and I will bring up subjects from the Speaker’s point of view that, in light of accumulated experience, must be considered:

1. The immunity law: Should it not include articles that will promise –
   1. The attendance of all Knesset members in the Knesset building during the three days of plenum sittings, other than those found on national or party-related missions. I will quote some of the parallels from other countries: The United States deducts the salary of a representative according to the extent of his absence; West Germany obligates a parliament member to sign an attendance sheet, and if his absences exceed a certain number of sittings, 10% of his salary is deducted; France fines a parliament member that is missing more than three days in a session, and in Sweden – for eight days. The situation is similar in Austria, and so on. I ask that the members of the house will consider this issue.
   2. I believe it is time that a Member of Knesset who serves time in prison will not receive wages and enjoy other benefits he is entitled to by his immunity.
   3. A Knesset member who reveals national secrets or leaks will stand for trial.
   
   
2. And now onto the Knesset Rules of Procedure. They need to be updated, but unfortunately I cannot say that the subcommittee in charge is doing its work. I ask that we consider the suggestion of MK Michael Harish which was brought up in the past Knesset and in the discussion over the foundations of parliamentarism, to establish a committee comprised of former Knesset members to discuss a reform in the work procedures of the house.
   
   
3. Electronic voting: There have been reservations and appeals, and it is important that we hear the opinion of the house members on this matter.
   
   
4. An additional building – It was my intention that every Knesset member have a room, and every two will share secretarial services. I ran into opposition. The additional building was meant to house an equipped hall for meetings, lectures and the screening of films. Do the members see it as a necessity or a luxury? And to those of you who see it as appropriate – another question: Is it adequate to stand behind our planning, or should we postpone it due to economic difficulties?
   
   
5. The committees
   1. Should we, and how can we, guarantee maximal attendance in the committees, when 30 Members of the Knesset are holding executive positions and many others are forced to sit on three committees simultaneously? Should we lower the number of members in the committees?
   2. How can we avoid parallel discussions on the same subject in two committees or more?
   3. Is there justification to order a committee chairperson to remove a subject that was raised on his own initiative, or the committee members’ initiative from the agenda, when the same subject is raised as an urgent motion for the agenda in the plenum?
   4. Are the areas of concern of the committees not clear enough? I receive many petitions on this matter, especially on one particular committee, and I will say nothing more on this matter.
   5. Is there room to provide greater authority to the committees, such as a legal requirement of witnesses’ appearance and authority to interrogate them?
   I have operated a forum of committee chairpersons, in which I attempt to create greater coordination and harmony among committees, but the above problems have not been solved yet.
   
   
6. Urgent motions for the agenda:
   1. Is it justified that a decision made by the Knesset presidium can be appealed before the House Committee, or does it distort the hierarchy of the house?
   2. Is there room to approve a motion for the agenda on a subject that has been approved for a parliamentary question?
   
   
7. Technical arrangements: I would like to know the opinion of the Knesset members as to the arrangements that have been made for the Knesset’s cafeterias and parking lots.
   
   
8. Permanent lobbies: How do the Knesset members feel regarding the multiplicity of lobbies in the building?
   
   
9. Inter-parliamentary connections: We have made progress in this matter: New friendship-leagues have been formed on the basis of cooperation, the number of incoming parliamentary delegations has increased, and we have established contact with parliaments in South America - in Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, and recently in Argentina.
   
   
10. The Knesset and the media: I am distressed by the silence that encompasses the faithful work of the single Knesset member that runs from one committee to another and does not abandon the building, while those who cause scandals, out of their personal hunger for publicity, stand out in their irregularities. Is it not appropriate to set a new platform with certain limitations on the activity of the television in the building, as is being done in many European and American parliaments?
    
    Unfortunately, we witness disrespectful criticism from the Knesset members themselves, and these are being displayed by the media with decisiveness. I ask: Will our glory come from this? I stop myself from saying that their ways are deviant, for I will be hated for it; nevertheless, I believe we should define boundaries.
    
    
11. I will say a few words on the Knesset and the government, with no pretension. I am proud to say that I have defended the Knesset’s dignity in many cases. I did not bend or break, even when certain decisions I had to make were as sharp as a knife and periodically left residual tensions between me and the government. There are still big hurdles that we need to overcome, in order to secure the superiority of the Knesset over the executive branch. I am happy to note that in principal matters I have had the understanding of the former and current Prime Ministers, as well as the Minister of Justice.

Finally, I will allow myself to say that alongside the subjects that occupy the plenum every week – there is the painful and complex matter of the ongoing war. I wonder whether it is really up to us to extinguish the fire, the brotherly feud and the disgrace? I will dare and say that history, in similarity to a painting, needs to be looked upon from a distance in order to reach the right assessment and judgment of the events. Such is the case in our deeds, in the laws we legislate and in the responses and motions that we raise on transient issues – and the philosophical saying was right in declaring that the law is not derived from justice, but it is the justice that is derived from the law.

I will end by asking that the participants speak out not only their criticism of others, of the government, but also of me, let alone that their courage be accompanied with sincerity.

I wish us all a deep and fruitful discussion, that will bring not only improvement in the work of the Knesset and raise its image by combining authenticity with renewal, but, furthermore, prove to the people that we, the members of the house of representatives in Israel, are returning to be a moral force that drives these torn people forward.