Press Conference by the Chief Cabinet Secretary (Excerpt)

Opening Statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Fujimura

• The discretionary funds of the Cabinet Secretariat and consideration on disclosing related information

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY FUJIMURA: I would like to make a statement concerning the paper which has been distributed to you. With regard to the lawsuit that requests the Government to disclose information about the discretionary funds of the Cabinet Secretariat for the portion utilized by former Chief Cabinet Secretary Kawamura on which the Osaka District Court made a ruling on the 22nd of last month, it cannot be stated that the decision of the ruling was valid, and therefore, the Government has decided to appeal the ruling today and is currently moving ahead with the procedures. That is, the Government will appeal the ruling by the end of today. Also, as part of the measures to increase the transparency of the discretionary funds of the Cabinet Secretariat, since I was appointed Chief Cabinet Secretary in September of last year, I, the person responsible for the handling of the funds, have been verifying their usage and other aspects. In this process, considerations have been advanced on both maintaining the function and ensuring the transparency of the discretionary funds of the Cabinet Secretariat - a very challenging task. As one of the ways to advance considerations, similar systems overseas were also studied. In each country, the information which is disclosed is extremely limited. Furthermore, relevant organizations were cautious about providing information. Based on what the Government was able to gauge in this context, in any of the countries, only the budgeted amount is disclosed under systems which correspond to that of the discretionary funds The Government found no countries which disclose information on expenditure, usage, and other aspects, or have legal systems for this purpose. In the meantime, although the trial is still ongoing, in Japan, two rulings of the Government's partial defeat have been issued in the lawsuit that requests the Government to disclose information pertaining to the discretionary funds of the Cabinet Secretariat. The ruling is still being appealed or will be appealed today. In this context, with regard to the Prime Minister's Office's portion of the discretionary funds of the Cabinet Secretariat, I feel that such information as the name and title of the payment recipient, payment purpose, and specific expenditure information stated in the receipt, etc., is subtle information which is extremely confidential. If such information is disclosed, this could very likely interfere with the activities of the Prime Minister's Office over the years ahead, including activities to gather information or request cooperation. For these reasons, I deem that even if it is after a certain length of time, such information is not suited for disclosure. On the other hand, the date on which the payment decision was made and the payment amount for accounting procedure purposes will be disclosed. This has a demerit, which is that at every such instance, the funds will be checked and analyzed against the internal and external political situation at the time that the payment was made. As a result, the relationship between the use of the "special funds" and a particular incident will be identified or projected, or a variety of speculations will be raised. This in turn could interfere with the advancement of the work of the Cabinet. However, bearing in mind the request to ensure transparency, I myself have come to the conclusion that disclosure would be possible upon organizing the information if a certain length of time has passed. With that in mind I have compiled, in the form of a personal proposal, a proposal to disclose, after a certain length of time, a document which states the date of the payment decision and payment amount for accounting procedure purposes by way of a Chief Cabinet Secretary decision. I intend to fully convey this concept to the succeeding Chief Cabinet Secretary of the Cabinet that will be inaugurated following the general election. Therefore, I believed that it would be appropriate for the final work, etc., to be delegated to the next Chief Cabinet Secretary. With that, I would like to conclude my announcement regarding the outcome of the various considerations which have been made over a period of more than one year.

Q&As

• The discretionary funds of the Cabinet Secretariat
• The election of the House of Representatives

REPORTER: In the middle of the document, where it refers to discretionary funds, it states that "in relation to the Prime Minister's Office's portion of the discretionary funds of the Cabinet Secretariat"; am I then right to understand that this does not apply to the Cabinet Intelligence and Research Office?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY FUJIMURA: Yes, that is correct; this time I limited the scope of the investigation to this section only for which I am the responsible individual.

REPORTER: Am I right to understand that the decision as to whether the information is to be disclosed after a certain period of time is to be made by whomever is Chief Cabinet Secretary?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY FUJIMURA: I understand that if we establish it as an official Chief Cabinet Secretary decision this rule will also be applied in the future. Rather than making a decision each time, I would prefer that the decision was made as an official Chief Cabinet Secretary decision that has perpetual effect, as outlined in my personal proposal, and I believe that this matter should be taken up from here by the next administration.

REPORTER: You proposed a framework for an official Chief Cabinet Secretary decision. Could you tell us why you have proposed a framework for an official Chief Cabinet Secretary decision rather than proposing a revision of the law?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY FUJIMURA: This matter has in principle always been carried out by Chief Cabinet Secretary decision; therefore I believed that it would be appropriate for this to once again be based on a Chief Cabinet Secretary decision in the interests of improving transparency, even if it is only a small step forward.

REPORTER: If it were an official Chief Cabinet Secretary decision it would not require Diet approval, therefore it would be possible to implement it immediately. Could you tell us why you came to a decision to pass this matter on to the next administration rather than having it done quickly?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY FUJIMURA: The election has already started and if we rush and make a decision based solely on my proposal it may seem as though we are making a premature decision, so I stopped after expressing my desire to pass it on.

(Abridged)

REPORTER: Could you elaborate on the details of the investigation into the disclosure of discretionary funds by foreign Governments? (Abridged) For example could you tell us in how much detail each country was examined?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY FUJIMURA: We made inquiries and requested investigation of four countries-the U.S., UK, Germany and France-via published literature, internet and diplomatic missions abroad. From what we have learned about each of these countries' equivalent system, they all disclose at most the budgeted amount, but there was no example where information on how the funds were actually used was disclosed. (Abridged)

(Abridged)

REPORTER: Yesterday, the Tomorrow Party of Japan had a problem when submitting their list of candidates for proportional representation. Could you tell us what actually happened?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY FUJIMURA: The submission of the candidate list by the Tomorrow Party of Japan was only made a few minutes before 5 pm. I have been informed that the subsequent review and acceptance of the list ended up being significantly past the deadline. I have been informed that the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications determined that the submission and acceptance of the candidate list was eventually appropriately completed as per the regulations of the Public Officers Election Act. Therefore the Government has nothing more to add.

REPORTER: The Public Officers Election Act establishes that submissions must be made before 5 pm but it has been speculated that the submission was in fact made after 5 pm. From a legal perspective, how does the Government determine exactly when 5 pm is? For instance, do you use a time signal?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY FUJIMURA: You asked me about the time at which submissions must be made and indeed, Article 270 does stipulate that submissions must be made "between 8:30 am and 5 pm." In relation to yesterday's submission of a candidate list for a proportional representation block, I have been informed that the candidate list was submitted and received before 5 pm and I have also been informed that it required some time after that to be reviewed and corrected. I understand that there is no problem from a legal point of view.

(Abridged)

REPORTER: I would like to ask a question about the election but on a different topic. Osaka City Mayor (Toru) Hashimoto has been communicating via Twitter, even after the official announcement of the election. Does the Government believe that it is legal for the executive of a party to discuss the policies of his own party and other parties?

CHIEF CABINET SECRETARY FUJIMURA: The Government is not responsible for determining the legality of these acts. I believe this will be dealt with by the police, but generally speaking updating websites constitutes the distribution and circulation of literature and images. If this was completed during the election campaign period, depending on the content of that which was communicated, firstly, if the website is deemed to be literature and images intended to influence an election campaign, it violates the regulations as per Article 142 of the Public Officers Election Act. Secondly, even if the website is not deemed to be literature and images intended to influence an election campaign, if the site displays the names of candidates or constitutes an act designed circumvent the prohibition of the circulation of literature and images intended to influence an election campaign, this also violates the regulations as per Article 146 of the Public Officers Election Act. I'm only speaking in general terms, and I believe eventually a judgment will be made by the appropriate authorities.

(Abridged)