'A loss for democracy': council green lights new question time changes

Prior to the pandemic, questions from the floor of the council chamber were the norm, with council required to hear from all members of the community wishing to present.

This altered in April 2020 when - in light of COVID-19 restrictions - council moved to online meetings, requiring questions to be reduced to writing and submitted by 4.30pm on the meeting day.

Now, the default position is that both public questions and submissions must be reduced to writing and submitted, respectively, by 12pm and 2.30pm on the meeting day, with council's previous obligation to hear questions from the chamber floor recast as a discretion which may or may not be exercised by the chair.

The changes have, in other words, removed council's obligation to hear directly from those who attend the meeting in person without prior notice. While council can, in its discretion, still hear from those people, it's no longer required.

Ratepayers Victoria vice president Dean Hurlston said the decision was a "loss for personal freedoms" and a "loss for democracy".

"This is just unelected council officers seeking to control the community again and it's a theme we're seeing right across Victoria," he said, in reference to a similar change by the Yarra City Council this week that mandated all public questions be reduced to writing.

"What it's really doing is taking away people's democratic right to be heard and for councillors to hear directly from the community.

"It's strategically being done to manipulate and manufacture an environment that suits council officers, rather than let the community freely speak."

But mayor Daniel Moloney insisted that the changes were, despite appearances, a win for transparency, and that concerns aired in a report published by this newspaper on Monday were "misleading".

"Look, I'll cut to the chase, it was a bit of a misleading article which gave the wrong impression that being able to rock up to the council chamber had been axed," he said, adding that the "only change", in his view, was around the timing of written submissions.

"I don't normally like to comment on the media, especially in my role as mayor, [but] it was a pretty disappointing article. Anyone can still come along and ask a question."

To similar effect was chief executive Evan King, who described the changes as a "fantastic suggestion" which would ensure "really good governance and really good transparency".

In making that argument, Mr King framed the changes as ones which were purely focused on expanding access to public question time for those who cannot attend in person, rather than an attempt to limit or control public questions in any way.

"[The changes] allow officers to do some detailed research so that the answers and data are factually based so we're giving good answers to the community," he said. "Once again, good governance and good transparency."

His views had persuaded council, with Crs Belinda Coates, Peter Eddy, Ben Taylor, Amy Johnson and Samantha McIntosh all commending the changes as a move in the "right direction".

"In no way, shape or form do the new rules take away people's ability to come [in] and ask questions," Cr Coates claimed. "It actually gives them the added ability of being able to ask for a more detailed response."

Echoing this, Cr Eddy added that he, too, believed The Courier's report was "misleading".

"I was somewhat confused and very dismayed at the coverage of this during the week," he said. "I thought it was misleading in the sense of the good work we're trying to do."

Cr Mark Harris, meanwhile, went so far as to suggest The Courier was, in his view, possibly "corrupt, stupid and incompetent".

"We've been relatively courageous in preserving the ability of people to come in and ask questions," he said.

"Either our responses to The Courier have been incompetent, stupid or corrupt or The Courier is incompetent, stupid and corrupt. To be frank, I think we've got to leave that to people's assessment."

In this connection, it bears emphasising that despite their strong protestations, none of the councillors, nor the City of Ballarat, contacted The Courier to dispute the accuracy of the Monday's report.

Reiterating statements made in that report, former mayor John Barnes said the new changes to public question time would likely "diminish scrutiny of council".

"The changes make it a penalty for the people who make the effort to physically attend the meeting and it also cuts out that personal discourse between members of the public and councillors," he said.

"It makes it much more difficult for people to raise issues at council meetings and get a response, particularly from councillors.

"[Public questions from the chamber floor] is a long-standing precedent in Ballarat - it was always felt that it was a desirable thing to give people that opportunity and this is what is being chipped away at and eroded."

Mr Barnes added that Wednesday evening's outcome suggested limitations on the part of councillors to properly scrutinise council officers' recommendations.

"There doesn't seem to be enough interrogation of the stuff that's put before them by the officers," he said. "And, as a result, they tend to adopt some policies which are good for the officers but perhaps not so good for democracy."

Lending weight to this view lies the fact that none of the councillors took issue with City of Ballarat's failure to release the new rules for public consultation, notwithstanding an officer's request that they endorse the changes as having complied with council's community consultation policy.

City of Ballarat director corporate services John Hausler had earlier informed The Courier that the decision not to seek community feedback was made on the footing the changes were, of themselves, less stringent than those previously released for consultation in November last year.

But Mr Hurlston, of Ratepayers Victoria, said the failure to release the changes for public consultation was arguably a "breach of the Local Government Act".

"The Act is very clear that changes to governance rules have to go out for consultation," he said.

"So, if they have not done that, that could be a breach and it would give the residents a right to challenge it."

Now just one tap with our new app. Digital subscribers now have the convenience of faster news, right at your fingertips with The Courier. See how to download it below: