Investigation into Harassment Allegations in Hyogo

Today, I would also like to confirm the violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act

by Governor Motohiko Saito of Hyogo Prefecture. Following the Article 100 Committee's

investigation report on the Governor's power harassment and whistleblower protection violations,

the third-party investigative committee's report on the document issue has been released.

It certified the Governor's power harassment in 10 out of 16 cases. Furthermore, as the whistleblower

document constituted an external public disclosure, the act of his aides searching for the author

was condemned as a violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act. Here, I would like to ask the Minister

of Health, Labour and Welfare to confirm. Since power harassment countermeasures are now an employer's obligation,

as the head of the Ministry, do you intend to eliminate all forms of harassment?

Is that indeed your stance?

Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare Ueno: In our country, regarding sexual harassment

and power harassment, employers are required to take necessary measures for employment management,

such as setting up consultation systems. Starting this October,

new measures will also be required for customer harassment and sexual harassment

against job seekers and others. Regarding national public servants,

the National Personnel Authority regulations also require similar measures to be taken.

At the Ministry, to prevent harassment across the entire workplace,

we are setting up consultation desks, assigning counselors, and enhancing training to create

a workplace environment free of harassment.

Mr. Kotaro Tatsumi: Creating a workplace free of harassment

is a matter of course for a leader. However, returning to Hyogo Prefecture,

Governor Saito has taken an astonishing attitude. He still does not recognize the former director's

whistleblowing as a public whistleblowing. In June of this year, Governor Saito testified

as follows in the prefectural assembly: 'Regarding our response to the document issue,

as the person written about in the document, there are statements that differ from the facts...'

Furthermore, it contained many individual and corporate names, and I recognized that leaving it unaddressed

would cause significant disadvantage to various parties, which is why I instructed senior officials

to conduct a thorough investigation and take appropriate action.

In this way, there is a risk that the prefecture's legitimate interests and credibility could be unfairly harmed.

In addition, when the truth of the allegations is unclear, identifying the author to conduct further

investigation and confirmation of the facts, and confirming whether there are reasonable grounds

to believe the contents of the document are true, is, in light of the law and its purpose,

not considered to be legally prohibited. And because that investigation

could not confirm the truth of the allegations, we believe this document

does not constitute a Category 3 report protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act.

I felt a shiver run down my spine when I heard this statement. There is not a shred of sincerity or truth

in the Governor's political stance or statements. Far from facing the fact that a senior official

was driven to suicide, nothing but blasphemy toward the deceased

is conveyed from this document. In short, we have asked the Consumer Affairs Agency to join us.

To begin with, searching for the whistleblower is prohibited, is that correct?

Iida, Director-General for Policy Planning, Consumer Affairs Agency: I will answer your question.

Regarding the search for whistleblowers, there are statutory guidelines

based on the current law. Within these guidelines, except in unavoidable cases,

Article 11 of the Whistleblower Protection Act requires business operators

to establish the necessary systems to respond appropriately to whistleblowing.

The statutory guidelines that define these specific measures

state that unless the business operator's workers and officers identify the whistleblower

in order to conduct a highly necessary investigation, or in other unavoidable

circumstances, measures must be taken to prevent searching for the whistleblower.

This is what is prescribed.

Furthermore, the same guidelines also require business operators to limit the scope...

workers who shared information externally or searched for the whistleblower,

and officers, taking into account the nature of the act, the extent of damage, and other circumstances,

we are requesting that disciplinary action or other appropriate measures be taken.

Thank you. Mr. Tatsumi.

You said it is prohibited in principle, except in unavoidable cases.

I would like to confirm: regarding those unavoidable cases,

the business operator has an obligation to demonstrate them, correct?

Deputy Director-General Iida.

To repeat, under the current statutory guidelines, business operators

must take measures to prevent workers and officers from searching for the whistleblower,

except in unavoidable cases, such as when a necessary

and thorough investigation cannot be conducted without identifying them.

That is what is prescribed. If a business operator

searches for the whistleblower, claiming it is an unavoidable case,

they must judge the appropriateness of it themselves. However, the intent of this provision

is to establish measures that business operators must comply with

to ensure they make a cautious judgment even in such cases.

Mr. Tatsumi. To begin with, the third-party investigation report

states that the Governor's actions in searching for the whistleblower

go against the intent of Article 11, Paragraph 4 of the Protection Act and Guideline 4-2,

and cannot be considered an unavoidable case as prescribed in Guideline 4-2(2)(b),

ruling it as illegal. The Governor is completely ignoring

the investigation results of the third-party committee he established using taxpayers' money.

The truthfulness of the various allegations has been recognized

in this third-party investigation report.

Therefore, unless the Governor presents something other than the third-party investigation committee's report,

he should be the first to show what constitutes an unavoidable case.

This means you have failed to explain that this search behavior is prohibited.

Last year, the Whistleblower Protection Act was amended,

and will take effect on December 1 of this year. In the amendment, Article 11-2

explicitly prohibits the obstruction of whistleblowing for the first time. What does this obstruction

of whistleblowing actually mean? Deputy Director-General Ida. / I will answer.

Regarding the prohibition of whistleblowing obstruction you mentioned, under Article 11-2 of the 2025 amendment,

which was newly established, business operators must not, without justifiable grounds, seek an agreement

not to file a whistleblower report, or state that disadvantageous treatment will occur

if a whistleblower report is made, or otherwise obstruct

whistleblowing. Specifically,

in the Whistleblower Protection System Q&A, etc., for workers who discover internal misconduct,

a business operator forcing them to sign a pledge not to blow the whistle in order to cover up misconduct,

or a business operator stating or suggesting that they will face disadvantageous treatment

if they do blow the whistle, are listed as examples of whistleblowing obstruction.

Kotaro Tatsumi. / Without paying any attention to the investigation report of the third-party committee

they set up themselves, they justify themselves, brazen it out, and rely on an investigation

into the legal violations they themselves were involved in and were accused of, and stubbornly insist

that it is not even a whistleblower report due to a lack of truthfulness, continuing this illegal state.

That is the current Governor of Hyogo Prefecture. The Whistleblower Protection Act is a law

to ensure that people do not suffer disadvantages for whistleblowing, and it is crucial that operations

are carried out in accordance with the law and guidelines to protect whistleblowers.

In the amendment taking effect this December 1, we heard in the response that this obstruction

of whistleblowing was included. And within that, suggesting that they will suffer disadvantages

is also prohibited. Failing to comply with laws and regulations, or leaving an illegal state unaddressed,

and treating someone disadvantageously for whistleblowing...

Wouldn't that fall under suggesting such actions? What do you

think, Director-General Iida? —I will answer your question.

Regarding what constitutes an example of whistleblowing obstruction under the revised law, when a public interest report is made,

whether it falls under suggesting disadvantageous treatment,

this is something that we believe will be comprehensively judged based on individual cases.

Therefore, regarding whether failing to comply with the laws and regulations pointed out by the committee member,

or leaving an illegal state unaddressed, falls under this suggestion,

this also depends on various circumstances of each individual case,

such as the specific nature of the actions or the awareness of the parties involved.

Taking these into account, a final judgment would be made in a court of law.

Therefore, please understand that it is difficult for me to answer with any preconceptions.

—Thank you. —Kotaro Tatsumi.

The response just now did not deny it. It did not deny it. In other words, making someone sign a pledge,

making them sign a pledge saying, 'There will be disadvantages, so absolutely do not blow the whistle,'

that naturally constitutes direct whistleblowing obstruction.

But suggesting or hinting—suggesting or hinting that there will be disadvantages—

it has become clear that doing so also constitutes a violation of the law.

Now, think about Hyogo Prefecture. In Hyogo Prefecture, which continues an illegal state

by not even following the third-party committee's report, can anyone make a public interest report

about the Governor's further misconduct, including power harassment or various criminal offenses?

They can't, can they? It wasn't denied. As of December 1st, I believe

that if the Governor continues to take such an attitude, it is certain to constitute a violation of the law.

I think we can definitely say that. And because I believe so,

Is that clear? Because I believe so, I will conclude my appeal and my questioning.

That is all.