However, the Supreme Court said it had to be justified, and therefore, reasonable. It did not provide comprehensive details as regards that rationale. That is a government responsibility. I believe the government has to consider its overall political responsibilities.
On the other hand, the Commission has a more specific mandate. It is also required to consider economic conditions. The Commission's mandate is far more restricted than is the government's or Parliament's mandate. The government states in its response that it has to face the music in terms of its election platform and promises, and that it will subsequently have to face the electorate. That is not the same kind of mandate.
When it talks about subsequent judicial review, the Supreme Court seems to be saying that if the government's response is unconstitutional, if it does not abide by the principle of independence, it will be censored by the courts.
Some lower court judges have said that when there is the slightest difference between the Commission's recommendations and the government's response, the principle of independence has been violated. But that is incorrect. What has been said is that this would be the case if the government's response was not reasonable. But political rationale is very broad; it includes the government's overall responsibilities. I guess this is something that could be discussed at great length, but at some point, someone has to decide. And that responsibility rests with Parliament.