|
On April 4, a plenary session of the House of Representatives was held, at which a government-sponsored bill on the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Convention) and related legislation were presented questions tabled. DPJ-Independent Club Diet member Makiko Kikuta posed questions.
In her opening statement Kikuta noted that the issue of the Hague Convention was one that the DPJ administration had vigorously promoted under the leadership of senior Cabinet ministers following the change of administration in 2009. She pointed out, however, that despite the fact that the bills were approved by the Noda Cabinet in March 2012 and submitted to the Diet they eventually had to be scrapped due to the severe resistance and intransigence of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which was then in opposition, and which refused even to engage in deliberation of the bills. She directed her questions to Minister of Justice Sadakazu Tanigaki, who at the time of the previous bills’ submission was LDP President, and also to Minister for Foreign Affairs Fumio Kishida, who then served as Chair of the Diet Affairs Committee, demanding an explanation about whether the LDP had changed its stance from one of opposition to the convention to one of support and if so, why. In response to these questions, both Tanigaki and Kishida prevaricated, stating that the reason the bills had not been deliberated in the Diet session last year was due to “various circumstances in the Diet” and also as a “result of various discussions in the Diet at the time.”
With regard to the convention, Kikuta stated “In order to maximize the interests of children there is no reason to hesitate about participating in international rules and cooperative mechanisms.” At the same time, she pointed out that “Various concerns have been noted to date relating to the conclusion of the convention. It will be of the utmost importance to develop and adjust domestic legislation in parallel with the conclusion of the convention. It is essential to implement domestic legislation that will protect women’s rights and ensure that the interests of children are maximized.” Accordingly, she questioned ministers on their views about the following issues: (1) Merits of concluding the convention, (2) How to protect the rights and interests of children, (3) Grounds for refusing permission for the return of a child, (4) Compulsory return of a child, (5) Support structure at overseas diplomatic missions, and (6) Calls on countries that are not yet party to the convention.
In particular, Kikuta recalled that under the DPJ administration the section of the draft bill that required the greatest time and effort concerned the question of how to protect children who have been subjected to domestic violence. With regard to grounds for refusing permission for the return of a child, she referred to the provision in the bill concerning determination of whether there is“grave danger of the child being subjected to mental or physical distress or other oppressive situations,” noting that “The Cabinet at the time approved that these matters should not merely be passed on to a court to decide, but that specific mention should be made in the bill that cases of domestic violence also constitute grounds for refusing permission for the return of a child. Accordingly, it was possible to give consideration to such matters and reflect them in the text of the bill, which I am proud to say is an outcome of political leadership.” She asked for confirmation that the current administration would maintain and follow through with this particular purpose. In response, Tanigaki stated “In specific cases, if it is determined that there are grounds for refusing permission for the return of a child, then accordingly the court will deny permission.” With regard to the handling of personal information of the victims of domestic violence, Tanigaki remarked “Except for the submission of such information to the court of jurisdiction that is deliberating the case for the return of the child, etc., it will not be possible for information to be supplied to any third parties and limitations will also be placed on the viewing of relevant court records. In this way the personal information of victims of domestic violence will be prevented from being accessed by the other parent who is the perpetrator of violence.”
Kikuta concluded her questions by stating “It is to be hoped that in the process of enacting the Hague Convention and applying domestic legislation that will support its enforcement, the interests of children and the rights of women will be duly respected and adequately ensured.”
|
