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.

No abstract

No abstract

Decision-making for major projects is often outside the legal remit of local governments in Australia. Nevertheless, local governments are the legitimate representatives of their communities and as such, can potentially make an important contribution to the decision-making process. However, little is known about how they may do so. This paper addresses that gap by analysing two case studies: Coal Seam Gas projects in northern New South Wales and the proposed East West Link tunnel in Melbourne. The research finds that local governments can contribute to good governance by increasing the quality and availability of information, community participation, and opportunities for local deliberation. However, this study also found a number of barriers to local governments making these contributions, which can disincentivise and limit local advocacy. The paper suggests there may be a range of benefits to be gained by reducing those barriers.