The power of procedural policy tools at the local level: Australian local governments contributing to policy change for major projects

ABSTRACT

As local governments have limited formal powers and less substantive policy instruments at their disposal, they are a particularly rich area for the study of procedural policy tools. This paper examines the role played by procedural policy tools deployed by local governments in Australia around the policy formation for, and approval of, major projects. This research analyses two Australian case studies: the East West Link tunnel in Melbourne, and the Coal Seam Gas projects of Northern New South Wales. Both are examples of major turnarounds in the public policy position of state governments, due to the persistent opposition of potentially impacted communities and their local governments.

This paper investigates what local governments did in these two high-profile cases to facilitate advocacy against the proposed projects. It found a rich mixture of procedural policy tools were deployed; from providing information and expertise and supporting community campaigns, to launching their own campaign, staging regular physical protests and forming an advocacy committee. Critical procedural tools that escalated the campaigns against the projects in Northern NSW included a community poll revealing the extent of community opposition to the industry, while in Melbourne, a joint legal action launched by impacted local governments proved decisive. These actions drew into question the legitimacy of the state government’s position in support of the projects, highlighting the power of procedural tools at this level of government.

KEYWORDS:

• Local government
• procedural policy tools
• major projects
• advocacy

Acknowledgments

I would like to acknowledge the Bundjalung and Wurundjeri people of the Lismore area and Fitzroy area, respectively, as the Traditional Owners and ongoing custodians of the land where these case studies took place. I would like to pay my respect to their elders past, present and emerging. I would also like to acknowledge the support of my supervisors and the generosity of the interview participants who shared their time and knowledge with me to make this research possible.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sarah de Vries

Sarah de Vries is primarily a policy practitioner, with over 10 years of experience in a number of planning and environmental policy roles in State Governments in Australia, first in Victoria and now in Queensland. She has recently completed her PhD at the University of Queensland. Having lived in Melbourne and spend time in Northern NSW, personal connections to both places inspired an interest in further exploring the lessons that can be learned from the case studies explored herein. Her research interests include environmental politics and the opportunities inherent within genuine democratic engagement.