The Council is considering limiting public questions to 2 minutes each and restricting councillor time during debates. Their stated motivation is the potential risks to health and safety posed by lengthy meetings.
Currently public question time is a magical feature of Port Phillip’s Council agendas. On many Wednesday nights, question time is more engaging than reality TV because it is unscripted. Questions, along with their obligatory preamble, can range from the reasonable to the obscure, from heartfelt to haranguing, and from the futile to the fertile.
But all these questions provide a chance to put inquiries directly to elected decision-makers in front of our community for all to hear. Remarkably, it is a two-way process with a public answer in response to your question – an endangered species in these times – but more about that later.
Proposed Limit of Two Minutes
Typically, questions are limited to 3 minutes, but it has been common practice to reduce this when many questions are submitted – sometimes over thirty questions have been registered. The draft rules propose a standard limit of 2 minutes per question.
Port Phillip already has strict rules on public questions that guard against abuse of the public platform. The rules distinguish the Council’s public questions from the combative model typical of parliamentary question times. Questions must be directed at the Council and not at individual councillors; they must not be defamatory, indecent, abusive, offensive, irrelevant, trivial, or objectionable in language or substance; they cannot aim to embarrass a councillor or a member of council staff; and there are restrictions against repeat questions.
TWiSK has witnessed many question sessions and offers these observations.
Two minutes or three minutes is paradoxically both a long and a short time. Some speakers start by claiming to have a simple question and three minutes later run out of time without having asked their actual question. Others want to ask a double, triple, or quadruple question in 2 minutes that would require a thirty-minute reply. Yikes.
Others, in deference, thank the council for the opportunity, thank their supporters, the council staff, and a cast of thousands before explaining their context so that the foundations, motivation, and justification of their many concerns are appreciated before detailing their objections to the complicated and complex situation…. You get the longwinded gist.
Our sympathies go to the questioners who ask why seemingly endless reports on [insert topic] covering hundreds of pages and years of staff time have resulted in little more than the need for another report on said topic. Shades of Utopia without the laughs.
Why Are Time Limits Being Suggested?
Here is the explanation published on the “Have Your Say” page: “Under the current meeting rules, this high level of engagement has led to meetings frequently running overtime. This poses potential risks to the health and safety of attendees and may impact the quality of decision-making.”
[Raised eyebrow emoji] Meetings running overtime. Excuse me. This is the Council that has cancelled at least three meetings this year because there wasn’t enough business.
Potential risks to health and safety. Excuse me again. Might public scrutiny cause higher blood pressure? Might a dismissive answer create even higher blood pressure? Are long meetings intrinsically unhealthy? Or are there simply risks? Now, there’s a thought.
Maybe the ‘answers’ should also be governed
The inherent asymmetry of these rules reveals a flaw in both motive and intent. Where are the rules that specify the quality, relevance, and completeness of the answers?
The proposed rules specify and limit the behaviour of the councillors and the public but are silent regarding the CEO and officers. A well-crafted two-minute public question may be a good outcome, but where are the rules governing the answer?
Are we entitled to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Or are there other standards that apply? If so, what are those standards, and how do we know they are being met?
TWiSK suggests there needs to be governance rules about the content and timing of the responses, including a searchable register of answers.
Link to Have Your Say page
Engagement closes 3 August 2025
