|
On June 10, DPJ President Banri Kaieda held his regular press conference, and stated, “With just 16 days remaining, we are now entering the final stages of the Diet session,” and “The Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly Election will start in 14 days.” He commented on the current situation in the Diet, pointing out that the two days of intensive debate that had been promised by the Chair of the Committee on Budget, the LDP’s Yuji Yamamoto, in the meeting of the budget committee executive on April 5 had still not been realized, and urged once more for this debate to take place.
LDP Secretary General Ishiba has been citing the fact that deliberations in the House of Councillors have ground to a halt as a reason for refusing to convene intensive debate. Kaieda pointed out: “The House of Councillors has not been in an abnormal state up until now. It was the LDP who carried out an act of sabotage by refusing to convene deliberations on the legislation.” He also stated that considering that the House of Councillors had started discussion of scheduling, “In that sense the House of Councillors is on the move again, and so I would also like to see the House of Representatives Committee on Budget convened.”
Kaieda also referred to Diet deliberations on new legislation regarding reproductive medicine and revision of the pharmaceuticals art, touching on a June 7 article in The Yomiuri Shimbun entitled, “Ruling parties give up passing new law on reproductive medicine during current Diet session”. This article could be read as implying that legislation promoting the early realization of reproductive medicine using iPS cells had been blocked due to opposition by the DPJ. Kaieda said that this perception “Differed totally from reality.” He went on: “The DPJ has actively promoted the use of iPS cells, and if the legislation had been submitted we intended to support it.” He said that he had confirmed the actual situation with the DPJ Director on the health and welfare committee, Kazunori Yamanoi, and learned that the facts were that: “The government had submitted the legislation but had not made any moves even to debate it.” He added that the DPJ had lodged a protest with The Yomiuri Shimbun. Kaieda went on, “We frequently see articles stating that the DPJ has prevented the enactment of a number of bills or is opposing their deliberation, but we do not begrudge the thorough deliberation of bills in committee, and of course we also support a number of these bills.” He urged the assembled reporters, “I would like to ask the members of the media to thoroughly check the facts before issuing reports.”
Kaieda went on to announce that last week eight legislative proposals relating to administrative reform had been submitted to the Diet either in conjunction with other opposition parties or by the DPJ alone. He expressed concern that on the other hand, “The ruling parties and government have not submitted even one legislative proposal of this kind relating to administrative reform,” and stressed that the DPJ as the party of reform would continue to promote administrative reform.
In relation to the proposal for the DPJ 2013 Manifesto which had been announced by Policy Research Committee Chair Sakurai the same day, Kaieda was asked by reporters how he would go on to oppose the Abe administration. Kaieda said that in the following two days general meetings of DPJ Diet members would discuss the proposal and so it had not yet been finally approved. He went on to say, “We will oppose Abenomics”, and “Abenomics is turning into something that damages people’s livelihoods. Such concerns are growing. In contrast, we will take care to protect people’s livelihoods.” Kaieda added that the DPJ had asked the Japanese people to make the tough decision to accept a consumption tax rise in order to make the pension, medical, nursing care and childcare systems sustainable, and expressed the opinion that the DPJ, LDP, and New Komeito bore responsibility for pursuing pension reform and comprehensive social security reform having signed the three party agreement. He said that in contrast to the LDP, which had started to take the position that “The current pension system will do, we only need to make partial adjustments,” the DPJ would take an opposing position and make every effort to enhance the pension, medical, nursing care and childcare systems.
|
