When a court is reviewing the reasonableness of a decision, in my experience and in various aspects of judicial review of decisions, they do not take the government's word as a given. They will want to evaluate the facts of the matter. It's a very lengthy process for them to come to a decision when they want to make sure they understand the contested facts of the issue. It's in the order of 12 to 18 months for those types of things.
I would also flag that given that this is at heart a regulatory process, there is already a set of guardrails to allow for the scrutiny through the development of the order-making process. For stakeholders to provide their views, there is guidance within the act in terms of how to scope and what's an appropriate use of those powers. There's a requirement that orders must be reasonable in relation to the gravity of the threat. You can't do something excessive in response to a minor issue.
Then again, to evaluate the reasonableness, you need to get into some analysis of facts, typically, and that means understanding the subject matter. Certainly, judges will absolutely get up to speed when they have a matter before them in their court, but it typically takes quite some time to do so.