RESPONSIBILITY FOR BLUNDERS

Dominion, Volume 38, Issue 21, 19 October 1944, Page 4

RESPONSIBILITY FOR BLUNDERS

Turakina Tunnels MR. SEMPLE’S NEW DOCTRINE

(By

IV. Downie Stewart.)

“I am responsible, but I am not to

blame,” said Mr. Semple in defending himself for costly blunders made by his department in the construction of two tunnels. This ingenious stateifent will appeal to the man in the street. For is it not magnanimous of Mr. Semple to accept responsibility for bad work, which no Minister could reasonably be expected to supervise in detail? On the other hand has he not a right to blame his staff and workmen if they failed in thenduty? But, strange as it may seem, under our system of government a Cabinet Minister cannot separate the two aspects of. the case in this subtle fashion. Where responsibility lies, blame lies and vice versa. How else can Parliament or the public find someone to punish. If the Minister cannot be punished because he is not technically to blame, and his officers and men cannot be punished because they are not,responsible, is everyone to go scot free? . If this new doctrine is allowed, the whole basis of our system of government is undermined. That system provides that from oue grade of workers to each higher, grade of the service a continuous chain of responsibility exists right up to the permanent head of the department. Thence it passes down from him to his Minister, and that exalted officer, as one authority says, “in the fullness of his power is liable' at any moment to be arraigned not merely for his own acts but for the acts of his subordinates before Parliament which again is itself -vesponsiblc to the sovereign people, Ihisi is the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility •which is regarded by many as the main shaft and supporting pillar of the political edifice." . _ ~ r • Aud again, “It has been said that the essence of good government is to find the proper man to hang if things go wrong. In modern practice this merely means that the Minister may be turned out of office. If the issue is serious enough and Cabinet had acquiesced in his department’s blunders, it usually means the defeat of the Ministry. Of course, as the Government has a majority which usually protects the Minister it is not often that he is condemned so that the theoretical power to bring about the dismissal of a Minister if he offends is not a very serious check upon his conduct. All the Opposition can do is to chalk it up for discussion at next election. In this case did the Opposition refrain from moving an adverse vote because it thought it unjust to punish Mr. Semple for the blunders of his staff? If so it abandoned the principle of Ministerial responsibility, which is the only safeguard the public has. Or did the Opposition refrain because the Government majority would out-vote it? In that cas-e it failed to make clear to the public that every Government member involved himself in the responsibility for the blunders. It had left it open for any Government member in an election to say, “I would have voted against Mr. Semple Ind it gone to a vote.” The point I wish to emphasize js that if Mr. Semple’s view is correct he theoretically accepts responsibility, but •-••"otically disavows it. This is a new and startling doctrine which affects our whole theory and practice of government. Ministers arc now continually blaming their officers who have little chance to defend themselves. Mr. Semple may have more reason for blaming his officers than Mr. Nordmeyer, Mr. Sullivan and others have had. Perhaps Sir James Allen was too generous when he always demanded, “Leave my, officers alone; attack me, not my officers,” but it was at least chivalrous of him. Incidentally Mr. Semple is right in refusing to admit that his expert knowledge of tunnel work has any bearing on the question. For reasons which I need not discuss here, our system is one of government by amateurs who control staffs of experts. Therefore if Mr. Semple were to be punished, it should not be because lie is an . expert, but because our rule is to make the Minister tlie scapegoat for the sins of his officers, and he is the ouly man Parliament can get at to punish. This is riot so unfair as it seems for, if a Minister gets credit for the good work of his officers, should he uot also accept the blame for their blunders?