The power of procedural policy tools at the local level: Australian local governments contributing to policy change for major projects[‘Two councils use more than $100k of ratepayers cash to fund Link battle’]

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.