I think my comment has been misinterpreted. It was in response to recent publicity regarding the 'architect' of the scheme. It triggered my mind to the comments Andrews made during the inquiry - 25/09/2020 - a clear reference to the National Cabinet. I'm surprised that at time the below comments weren't questioned.
Here they are verbatim:
A. Well, I would only be offering an opinion, if that would be useful to the Board.
30
Q. Yes, if you think that what happened here was collective decision-making, we would be pleased --
A. I think it's --- Ms Ellyard, I want good and the best decision-making, and I think it's very difficult to make judgments about that unless you can point to who made it. 35 I don't know that this --- I don't --- my understanding of collective decision-making does not remove accountability, it does not remove --- for instance, as the Chair of the Cabinet, the Cabinet makes a collective decision but I have made that decision because I am the Chair of that Cabinet. If a group of people meet and a decision is made, then a similar formality ought be borne to those process --- come to those 40 processes as well. That's at least my practical experience from the many, many meetings and different forums that I'm the chair of. I don't think collective decision-making makes it harder to determine what body and which people made a judgment, made a decision. That's why those forums have a record of decisions and minutes and a degree --- they are an authorising environment.
https://www.quarantineinquiry.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-09/20200925 Hotel Quarantine Program - Day 25 - FINAL.pdf - Pg 45 - for further reading if anyone could be bothered.
I was simply pointing out that at no stage has anyone, at either level, been willing to be accountable for decisions made. It's always someone else's job.