No. 1355 Bill to Allow State Authority to Control on Autonomy
A bill to revise the Local Autonomy Act is presented to the Diet for debates. It is to permit the state authority to give instructions to local governments, though their relationship is equal. This represents renunciation of autonomy, but the administration and ruling parties are planned to put it on the agenda. The bill must be withdrawn.
BILL MUST BE SCRAPPED AS IT DRIVES AWAY LOCAL AUTONOMY
The draft text for revision says that ‘the state’s authority over local governments has been disclosed unclear in the policies taken during the pandemic’, and, therefore, that ‘the state government shall be allowed to instruct local governments in case of severe incidents like infectious diseases and natural disasters.’
Reportedly, the bill corresponds to ‘the official replies on local autonomy to cope with the economic structure shaped following the Covid-19 catastrophe’ (December 2023). The accounts were issued by the Investigation Council on Local Autonomy System.
Responses beyond estimations?!
The replies point out (1) severe and geographically extended natural disasters, (2) great earthquakes, and (3) the Covid-19 pandemic, saying that ‘these are events that cannot be tackled by way of once-effective measures based on experiences’, and continuing that ‘emergencies came successively which were not provided in the existing legal norms.’
Concretely, the bill says that (1) ‘local trends of the infection have not been reported speedily to the state authorities from municipalities’, which are essential to know situations exactly across the country and to analyze them,’ and that (2) ‘local institutions, including public hygiene offices, were unable to work on the massive number of official orders from the state to local governments as these facilities were enormously busy with patients.’
What has happened, however, was, actually, that the state’s requests to municipalities for presentation of information and its policies changed almost every day. Systems and applications provided by the state could not work correctly within short time. Public hygiene offices could not respond rightly to the state’s policies, why? It is because of the structural liabilities of the pandemic policies as enormous jobs were concentrated to specific sections.
Government justifies itself, taking advantage of culpabilities
The central government should have reviewed sincerely its faults. But it says that it could not afford to announce necessary measures to local governments. The bill stipulates that ‘a special clause should be set up that the state’s government shall be allowed to give necessary instructions to local governments when the existing laws do not have relevant provisions.’
According to the Local Autonomy Act, the Act on Infectious Diseases is applied to such diseases, and the Natural Disasters Act, for natural catastrophes. These two laws allow the central government to instruct local governments. It is clear from a point of local autonomy or decentralization of powers.
The draft text of the bill, however, says that ‘in an event which the existing laws do not cover and when the state-level instruction is especially needed to protect people’s life’ ‘the state authority can be allowed to instruct local governments in a complementary manner’ ‘by way of a decision in the Cabinet’.
The bill does not use terminologies as emergency or contingency, but it allows the central government to rule and control over local governments through the Cabinet’s decisions by evading debates in the Diet. The idea denies the constitutional right of local autonomy, which might be led towards a wartime regime. The bill must be abolished.
今国会に提出されている「地方自治法改定案」は、国と地方の対等関係を国が地方に指示できるようにするもので、地方自治の否定だ。政府・与党は審議入りを目論むが、廃案にすべきだ。
改定案は、「新型コロナウイルスへの対応で自治体への国の権限が明確化されていなかった」ので「感染症や災害など重大な事態が発生した場合、国が自治体に指示できる」とする。
地方制度調査会の「ポストコロナの経済社会に対応する地方制度のあり方に関する答申」（23年12月）を踏まえたという建て前の法案だ。
想定外への対応⁉
答申は、①広域かつ甚大な風水害、②大規模地震、③新型コロナによる感染症危機を挙げ、「これまでの経験に基づく備えでは対応できない事態」と「従来の法制では想定されていなかった事態」が相次いだと指摘。
具体的には、①「全国の感染症状況等の正確な把握・分析に必要な各地域における感染動向等が地方公共団体から国に対して迅速に提供されない局面」と、②「国から地方公共団体に大量に発出された通知に新型コロナ対応に追われる保健所等の現場では対応できなかった」とする。
しかし、起きていたのは、国からの自治体への情報提供要請の内容やコロナ禍政策の執行方法が毎日のように変化し、国が用意したシステムやアプリも直ちに使いものにならなかった事態であり、保健所が対応できなかったのは特定部署への業務集中という新型コロナ対策の構造の問題だった。
失敗を逆手にとり
政府は新型コロナ対策の失敗を総括すべきなのに、自治体に必要な指示をできなかったと指摘。「個別の法律に規定がなくても国が自治体に必要な指示を行うことができる特例を設ける」とする。
地方自治法では、感染症は感染症法、災害は災害対策法など個別の法律に基づいて、国は自治体に指示できる。地方自治、地方分権の理念から当然のことだ。
しかし、改定案では「国の地方公共団体に対する補充的指示」として、「個別法の規定では想定されていない事態のため個別法の指示が行使できず、国民の生命等の保護のため特に必要な場合」は、「閣議決定」で国が自治体に指示することが可能となる。
非常時とか緊急時とはうたっていないが、国会審議もなく、閣議決定だけで国が自治体を支配・管理できることになる。憲法に基づく地方自治の否定であり、戦時法制に繋がるもので、廃案しかない。
英訳版↓
No. 1355 Bill to Allow State Authority to Control on Autonomy
A bill to revise the Local Autonomy Act is presented to the Diet for debates. It is to permit the state authority to give instructions to local governments, though their relationship is equal. This represents renunciation of autonomy, but the administration and ruling parties are planned to put it on the agenda. The bill must be withdrawn.
BILL MUST BE SCRAPPED AS IT DRIVES AWAY LOCAL AUTONOMY
The draft text for revision says that ‘the state’s authority over local governments has been disclosed unclear in the policies taken during the pandemic’, and, therefore, that ‘the state government shall be allowed to instruct local governments in case of severe incidents like infectious diseases and natural disasters.’
Reportedly, the bill corresponds to ‘the official replies on local autonomy to cope with the economic structure shaped following the Covid-19 catastrophe’ (December 2023). The accounts were issued by the Investigation Council on Local Autonomy System.
Responses beyond estimations?!
The replies point out (1) severe and geographically extended natural disasters, (2) great earthquakes, and (3) the Covid-19 pandemic, saying that ‘these are events that cannot be tackled by way of once-effective measures based on experiences’, and continuing that ‘emergencies came successively which were not provided in the existing legal norms.’
Concretely, the bill says that (1) ‘local trends of the infection have not been reported speedily to the state authorities from municipalities’, which are essential to know situations exactly across the country and to analyze them,’ and that (2) ‘local institutions, including public hygiene offices, were unable to work on the massive number of official orders from the state to local governments as these facilities were enormously busy with patients.’
What has happened, however, was, actually, that the state’s requests to municipalities for presentation of information and its policies changed almost every day. Systems and applications provided by the state could not work correctly within short time. Public hygiene offices could not respond rightly to the state’s policies, why? It is because of the structural liabilities of the pandemic policies as enormous jobs were concentrated to specific sections.
Government justifies itself, taking advantage of culpabilities
The central government should have reviewed sincerely its faults. But it says that it could not afford to announce necessary measures to local governments. The bill stipulates that ‘a special clause should be set up that the state’s government shall be allowed to give necessary instructions to local governments when the existing laws do not have relevant provisions.’
According to the Local Autonomy Act, the Act on Infectious Diseases is applied to such diseases, and the Natural Disasters Act, for natural catastrophes. These two laws allow the central government to instruct local governments. It is clear from a point of local autonomy or decentralization of powers.
The draft text of the bill, however, says that ‘in an event which the existing laws do not cover and when the state-level instruction is especially needed to protect people’s life’ ‘the state authority can be allowed to instruct local governments in a complementary manner’ ‘by way of a decision in the Cabinet’.
The bill does not use terminologies as emergency or contingency, but it allows the central government to rule and control over local governments through the Cabinet’s decisions by evading debates in the Diet. The idea denies the constitutional right of local autonomy, which might be led towards a wartime regime. The bill must be abolished.
May 15, 2024