If a company does not have in place appropriate systems for safety the ultimate responsibility rests with the directors. They must do whatever is necessary to avoid deaths. If they fail in this duty they are negligent and are personally culpable for that failure. They will feel the punishment personally. It is irrelevant if the shareholders or insurers of the company then put in place measures to try to repair the failure. Culpability for negligence stays with the directors.
Mr Rudd is trying to say that no public servant, Mr Garrat or he are personally culpable and therefore should not be punished for the insulation scheme deaths. He is spinning a line that because he will throw another $41m of taxpayers money at the problems there is no culpability.
He is playing a spin game of confusing words. He says he is 'stepping up to the plate'; that is meaningless US political dribble. He says 'the buck stops with him'; more dribble.
The words responsibility, accountability and culpability are the appropriate ones. Mr Garret had the responsibility to oversee the insulation program, he was accountable for results and culpable for any negligence.
Mr Garret and Mr Rudd are culpable. There is a personal price to pay for negligence or incompetence. In our Westminster system the appropriate course of action is for Mr Garret to resign. Bacci
