從日本「消費者庁」反思我國消費者保護行政組織之現狀與開展

Reform of Consumer Protection Administration in Taiwan：Lessons from the Unified Organization of Japan's Consumer Affairs Agency

系所名稱：社會科學院國家發展研究所
學位別：碩士
畢業學年：107年
指導教授：陳新民
自1962年起前後經過30年更迭歲月，日本政府於2009年終於設置掌理消費者保護政策與措施之綜合性、專責性的行政機關-消費者廳。設立迄今已近十年，開啟了日本消費者保護史上的新猷。正式確立了以消費者廳為單一窗口，統一蒐集消費者受害事件之相關資訊，並確保各部會應基於該資訊，採取必要措施，以避免多頭馬車，加強橫向聯繫，掌握處理消費者受害事件之先機，意義非同小可。這是日本繼1971年設置環境廳、1974年設置國土廳之後，近半世纪以來，所進行之另一次大規模之組織移撥工程。主政者透過消費者保護行政組織一元化，以貫徹保護消費者之決心，令人稱許。尤其關於與公正取引委員會及各省廳移交業務所涉及相關法規整備及機關整併之程序，更值得借鏡。
反觀我國於2012年將消費者保護行政組織改制，由原來的行政院消費者保護委員會併入行政院內部業務單位為「行政院消費者保護處」。改制後臺灣適逢一連串之食安事件與消費糾紛不斷發生，政府雖然提出各項因應對策，但或許因判斷基準曖昧不明、相關制度建置時間過短，以致尚未有明顯成效。但最主要原因，在於欠缺類似日本消費者廳之統合協調機關，往往礙於本位主義，整合不易。不僅中央與中央、甚至中央與地方間之消費者保護組織溝通協調與爭議處理平台、及主管機關之責任歸屬均出現了爭議及漏洞，致使消費者權益無法獲得充分保障。是以，消費者行政組織改革之探討，實有其必要。
由於我國之消費者保護組織制度之設計於立法當初乃參考如英、美、瑞典等先進國家之立法例，故本文之研究主要係以日本與我國消費者保護制度之比較為對象，介紹日本消費者政策變革與立法背景牽涉不同領域之專屬法規動向、體例與概念，期能完整掌握日本消保行政發展之意義，檢討其主管機關制度之優缺點。並就我國改制後之消保行政組織定位之方向，提出具體建議，俾供主管機關未來修改行改組織法律之參考。

Consumer protection is one of the most important national policy. In order to completing the central and local consumer protection work to protect the rights of consumer’s, most countries have developed a credible, public power of the consumer protection mechanisms and measures, for example, to legislate for consumer protection laws, to establish consumer protection organizations in central level…etc,. Also in January 1, 2012, Taiwan’s consumer protection organizations had restructured. Original Consumer Protection Commission, Executive Yuan had incorporated inside one of the internal unit of the Executive Yuan –called Department of Consumer Protection (DCP).After the restructuring of the consumer protection organization, DCP coincided with a series of food safety incidents, and discovered that existing consumer protection organizations exist many problems indeed. These problems has protruded the relationship between not only central and central but central and local’s, and there has been controversy and vulnerability of consumer protection organizations and dispute processing platform, communication and coordination, implementation level of accountabilities and it’s authority. Furthermore, before organizational restructuring, there has problems about consumer protection organizations, and the same problems still exist now. So, there is a doubt whether the effectiveness of DCP has improved just like Development and Evaluation Commission, Executive Yuan expected?Because most of the design of the organizational system of consumer protection is taken from foreign, therefore, this paper is based on studying comparative law. In this paper, I use Japan's consumer protection organizations as the major object, also in the United States, Sweden, South Korea and other countries of relatively minor object to comparison of Taiwan’s consumer protection organization (Including various central industry competent authority, local government, local consumer service centers and consumer dispute mediation committee and Consumer Protection Officer system) and give my advice.