The politics of affectedness : Contestations over affectedness in a local environmental controversy

Transcription

1 The politics of affectedness : Contestations over affectedness in a local environmental controversy Paper for Australian Political Studies Association Annual Conference, September 2016, University of New South Wales, Sydney Selen A. Ercan University of Canberra, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance Sonya Duus University of Canberra, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance Carolyn M. Hendriks Australian National University, Crawford School of Public Policy Hedda Ransan-Cooper University of Canberra, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance Acknowledgement: This paper is part of an on-going research project funded by the Australian Research Council, entitled Realising Democracy Amid Communicative Plenty: A Deliberative Systems Approach (DP ). For further information, see: 1

2 Abstract To claim democratic legitimacy collective decision-making procedures should have a clear principle that defines who should be included in these procedures and whose exclusion can be justified. One such principle is the so called all affected principle which according to some scholars of democracy offers the best general principle of inclusion and thus democratic legitimacy. This paper focuses on the practical ramifications of this principle in the context of a local environmental controversy from the perspective of the key actors involved in the debate. It explores the various meanings attached to the notion of affectedness through an interpretive analysis of the controversy surrounding a proposed coal seam gas project in Narrabri, Australia. We identify three dominant constructions of affectedness: space-based, numbers-based, and issue-based affectedness. We find that the way affectedness is understood by actors has important implications for determining not only the legitimate/illegitimate participants of the public debate, but also legitimate/illegitimate types of democratic activities. This, we argue, shapes the public sphere in and around a given, political controversy, and its democratic quality. We argue that when multiple constructions of affectedness produce a fragmented public sphere it can be difficult for affected publics to find common ground. Keywords: affectedness, all affected principle, conflict, inclusion, democratic legitimacy, energy, coal seam gas 2

3 1. Introduction Democracy, by which we mean rule by the people, fundamentally rests on the idea of the people. However, as Ivor Jennings (1956, 56) famously argued: The people cannot decide until someone decides who are the people. The core idea is that democracy always needs a collective, a group of individuals (usually defined as a demos) to participate in the democratic process of decision-making irrespective of how this process is defined. So, for an aggregative procedure, such as an election, an electorate needs to be defined before votes can be cast and a winner determined (Goodin 2007, 43). In deliberative procedures, publics potentially affected by a given decision need to be first identified so that they can be effectively included or be represented in deliberative decision-making (Dryzek 2000). Determining who should be included in the collective is a central challenge of any democratic procedure. This is the so-called boundary problem of democracy, to which democratic theorists have proposed several responses. The most well-known approach is to limit the collective to a particular region or area, for example, an electoral district (Rehfeld 2005). This solution, which presupposes the existence of political community bounded by a certain geographical territory, has been critiqued for not being inclusive enough especially of nongeographical constituencies such as those emerging from race, ethnicity, class, gender, environment, global trade and so on (Urbinati and Warren 2008, 396). An alternative response to the boundary problem is that anyone whose interests are affected by a decision should have a voice in the making of that decision (see for example Schaffer 2011). This is the idea that constitutes the core of what is known as the all affected interests principle: that affectedness justifies a right to participate in the decision-making process. The all affected interests principle has been considered particularly relevant for the decisionmaking processes on environmental controversies, such as climate change, water pollution or acid rain (see for example Stevenson and Dryzek 2014, 35) These are usually given as examples of the type of problems that affect people beyond than those who caused them, beyond those living in a particular territory, and that are not constrained to a particular point in time. Normatively speaking, addressing these problems democratically (and legitimately) requires the inclusion of all that are affected by these problems. While normatively appealing, the all affected interests principle has important limitations, including the danger that it may paradoxically hinder rather than enable the prospects for achieving democratic legitimacy (see for example Erman 2014; Schaffer 2011). According to 3

4 Song (2012), for example, the all affected principle lacks the solidarity required for democratic participation on account of physical distance and for failing to establish clear links between representatives and their constituents. On this view, it seems that only a political unit on the scale of a city-state can produce a demos that is sufficiently cohesive to practice it (Miller 2009, 207 emphasis in original). The principle also lacks objective criteria for differentiating between affected and unaffected publics in a particular controversy. It does not itself explain what being affected by a political decision means (Schaffer 2011). It usually implies that some of your basic rights or interests have been infringed upon, but it does not specify what these are, and whether they are shared by a collective wide enough to enable a shared democratic action. As such the principle proves to be particularly difficult to adopt when it comes to issues where the temporal and spatial boundaries are nebulous, and where for instance, those affected include future generations or people living thousands of kilometres away (Eckersley 2000). As Shaffer (2011, 2) notes, while the all-affected principle may appear common sensibly sound and simple, it raises serious problems as soon as we try to use it to set political boundaries. In this paper, we argue that despite these challenges, the all affected principle still offers an important starting point to identify and assess the conditions required for achieving democratic legitimacy. It shapes the contours of the public sphere that emerges on and around an issue, and it has direct implications for its democratic quality. In order to illustrate how this occurs in practice, we interrogate what it means to be affected by a particular decision by looking closely at a particular environmental controversy. Our aim here is not to suggest an alternative principle to the all-affected principle. Nor are we seeking to replace one theoretical construct with another, as the existing literature on this principle tends to do (e.g. Schaffer 2011; Song 2012). Instead, following Miller (2009, 203), we argue that it is important to think about this principle on the basis of contingencies of time and place (e.g. in the context of certain controversies) informed by an empirically grounded judgment. To this end, we ask: i) how do actors involved in a particular controversy understand and construct affectedness?; ii) what democratic activities are legitimised and delegitimised through these constructions of affectedness?; and, iii) what implications do different constructions of affectedness have for the public sphere that emerges around a particular controversy and for its democratic quality? 4

5 These questions have important implications for achieving democratic legitimacy in environmental controversies, especially we if acknowledge that legitimacy is not created in a vacuum but arises through, and must be couched within, existing social and political processes (Beetham 1991; Johnson, Dowd, and Ridgeway 2006; Connelly 2011). Actors involved in a particular debate often use various discursive strategies to construct notions of affectedness, and these constructions shape not only ideas about who can legitimately participate in the debate, but also how. In other words, constructions of affectedness also carry strong ideas about what is a legitimate democratic activity, and what is not. By democratic activities we are referring to the various ways people seek to have their say on a public issue of concern to them. These can include activities for political expression such as protests, everyday talk, attending a public rally, letters to the editor, and social media engagement, as well as more formal democratic activities such as voting, standing for election, participating in a consultative forum or parliamentary inquiry. Some democratic activities may be considered appropriate and legitimate because they accord well with the dominant participatory storylines that actors hold about who ought to participate in policy making (Hendriks 2005). Other democratic activities may be deemed illegitimate because they fall outside the dominant narrative of what consititue appropriate participation. Our analysis of constructions of affectedness centres on the controversy surrounding a proposed coal seam gas project (Narrabri Gas Project, or NGP) in North West New South Wales (NSW). The NGP controversy has been debated locally and nationally in various online and offline venues since at least While the subsantitive debate surrounding the NGP is mostly concerned its potential costs and benefits, the controversy has also involved ongoing contestation over democratic themes, such as who is entitled to have a say, where and how. At the centre of these contestations are competing constructions about who is likely to be most affected by the proposed gas project. Drawing on extensive interview and other qualitative material, we find that for this particular local controversy, there are three different constructions of affectedness used variously by key actors in the debate. In examining these constructions we consider the type of democratic activities that each legitimises and delegitimises. We find that the meaning of affectedness is highly contested and it shifts depending on the context and audience. Contestation over who is affected, and therefore whose voices are more legitimate creates a highly fragmented 5

6 public sphere and makes it extremely difficult to find common ground between pro- and antigas perspectives. 2. Understanding affectedness as a discursive construct Scholars of public policy have long argued that policy issues and the actors responsible for the emergence and resolution of these issues are not simply out there, but are discursively constructed (Hoppe 2011). In this context, public policy scholars have paid particular attention to the question of how publics are constructed as it has implications for how public problems are defined (Bacchi 2009), how policy agendas are set, and how policies are formulated, designed and evaluated (Bovens, t Hart, and Kuipers 2006; Schneider and Ingram 1993). Each construction of a public or what Schneider and Ingram calls target populations relies on: (1) recognition of the shared characteristics that distinguish a target population as socially meaningful, and (2) attribution of specific, valence-oriented values, symbols, and images to the characteristics (Schneider and Ingram 1993, 335). Actors that lie outside dominant constructions may be viewed as illegitimate participants (Barnes et al. 2003), or their activities and forms of political participation delegitimised (Hendriks 2005). Democratic theorists too have paid particular attention to the definition of collectives (demos), and the questions of who can be legitimately included and excluded in demos. As noted at the outset of this paper, the all affected principle has been suggested as one possible way of thinking about these questions. The existing literature on this principle tends to remain normative and pays scant attention to the empicial questions it raises. One such question is: how do actors involved in political debates construct affectedness? Do they construct affectedness in line with the core aspirations of democracy (e.g. inclusion, political equality) or do they use it as a discursive strategy to exclude certain actors and their political activities? These questions have important implications for defining the boundaries of the public sphere that emerges on and around a particular controversy, and for its democratic/inclusionary credentials. On the one hand, notions of affectedness are constructed in the public sphere, but at the same time these constructions shape how actors view, understand and participate in the public sphere. 6

7 Here we understand the public sphere to be the space that citizens have created as they make meanings with others, as they coordinate actions and produce outcomes, and where they construct meaning, identity, purpose, and political direction (McAfee 2015, 282). Central to the idea of a public sphere is that it offers multiple opportunities for people meet (face-to-face or virtually) to discuss public issues of concern to them. In a healthy public sphere different arenas for discussion overlap and interconnect, and people are free to express themselves, relate to each other, as well as witness and audit (Young 2012, 117). The public sphere is where the collective meaning-making processes take place, where public opinion is formed and societal decisions are made. Societal decisions refer to those decisions that are not made by the state, but where society reaches a broad conclusion about an issue, or when practices or norms change for example in relation to race and gender (Parkinson and Mansbridge 2012, 8). Such decisions can be seen as the outcome of public debate and deliberation in the broader public sphere. To claim democratic legitimacy, the process of making these decisions should be open to all, at least in principle, provided that they adhere to certain discourse rules (e.g. those that Habermas outlined under his notion of ideal speech situation, see Habermas 1989). 1 Such rules seek to make public sphere more inclusive by allowing every person including the previously marginalised groups the same opportunity to participate in discourse. Without a doubt, procedures alone cannot guarantee inclusion. Not everybody or every claim enjoys equal hearing in the public sphere. There are also discursive legacies and dominant participatory storylines (Hendriks 2005) that can persist in a given society/controversy. These concern the established notions of who and what are considered reasonable, sensible and legitimate (Koopmans 2004, 451), as well as how legitimate actors ought to participate in the issue (Hendriks 2005). Depending on the controversy at stake, certain types of knowledge claim more legitimacy over others, such as scientific expertise. Similarly, local knowledge (Yanow 2003), or the specific knowledge of those who are seen as affected by the issue at stake usually enjoy a greater credibility, and a crucial role in the making of both societal and governmental decisions. Decision makers often and usually for strategic reasons draw on the 1 Definition of public sphere according to Habermas (1989, 231): By public sphere we mean first of all a domain of our social life in which such a thing as public opinion can be formed. Access to the public sphere is open in principle to all citizens. A portion of the public sphere is constituted in every conversation in which private persons come together to form a public. Citizens act as a public when they deal with matters of general interest without being subject to coercion; thus with the guarantee that they may assemble and unite freely, and express and publicize their opinions freely 7

8 insights suggested by affected publics to enhance the legitimacy of the decisions they make. Participatory processes that fail to include affected publics are usually defined as illegitimate and undemocratic, both by politicians and by stakeholders themselves (Parkinson 2003). But how should we define who belongs to affected publics? What criteria of affectedness works best for achieving democratic legitimacy? Is this an objective or a subjective process? When we consider the notion of affectedness in practice, that is, in the context of a particular controversy, we see that there is not one but multiple notions of affectedness at play. Indeed affectedness is a discursive construct, and like the terms publics or community it is collectively imagined (Ezrahi 2012), and sometimes also embedded in institutions (Burr 1995). By arguing that affectedness is constructed, we are not suggesting that it is manufactured. Rather, our point is that affectedness is a construct that is formed through complex social and political processesm and not something out there waiting to be found. Understanding affectedness as a social construct draws our attention to power relations that maintain certain constructions of affectedness while constantly challenging others. It also serves to highlight the discursive strategies that actors use to draw boundaries between inclusion and exclusion (sometimes strategically) as well as to claim space and legitimacy for themselves and their political activities. Given this, the question of who is affected by the issue at stake and who should be expected to participate in democratic debate cannot be answered solely by reference to individual motivation, but also needs to understand the power relations operating within any particular initiative (Barnes et al. 2003, 380). In fact, the way (affected) publics are constructed are often manipulated and used by public officials, the media, and the publics themselves (Schneider and Ingram 1993). Constructions of affectedness also shape the perceived legiltimacy of different democratic activities. For example, if affectedness is constructed around the impact on particular social groups, then a group-based mode of participation and representation would be perceived as more legitimate than say electoral processes, protests or opinions surveys. In other words, constructions of affectedness draw our analytic attention not only to contestations over who should participate in debates, but also to contestations over what constitutes legitimate modes of political expression and participation. We turn now to examine how affectedness is constructed in a real world political controversy. 8

9 3. Case study: Three constructions of affectedness in the context of the NGP debate Our analysis focuses on the debate surrounding the Narrabri Gas Project (NGP), a coal seam gas project proposed by Santos in north-west New South Wales (NSW). Santos, an Australian based oil and gas producer, plans to develop roughly 850 gas wells across a 1000 square kilometre project area, comprising part of the Pilliga State Forest as well as private agricultural land. If it goes ahead, the project is anticipated to operate for at least 20 years, and supply 25% to 50% of NSW s gas demand (Buckley 2014; Knox and Baulderstone 2014). As it stands, the NGP is the only proposed CSG project in NSW likely to proceed (see for example Black 2016). The NGP is very controversial and the debate highly polarised, especially since around Supporters of the project include local businesspeople, contractors, town residents, some farmers, and the current conservative State Government. These supporters generally highlight the economic benefit to the region and state, the safety and sound regulation of CSG, as well as the need for a secure gas supply in NSW. Opposing the project are some farmers, townspeople and environmentalists. Opponents concerns largely relate to negative impacts to groundwater and agriculture, but also include human health, the ecological values of the Pilliga Forest, light pollution from gas flares, industrialisation of the region, and climate change (Hendriks, Duus, and Ercan 2016). These various issues and concerns directly related to the NGP are invariably entangled with larger democratic themes. For instance, there are often real and/or perceived challenges to the rights of landholders and communities who face resource extraction and the entry of large multinational companies into local regions. High levels of distrust in government and politicians, resource companies, science, data, regulation, and fear of social ostracism also regularly underpin disquiet around CSG projects (Taylor, Sandy, and Raphael 2013). Debate over the NGP comprises numerous democratic activities through which actors seek to express their views, mobilise support and influence decisions. These include formal democratic activities such as parliamentary debates, scientific and legislative inquiries, stakeholder forums, council meetings, and community meetings. Informal democratic activities include engaging in print and electronic news media, protests, rallies, highway demonstrations, everyday conversations at the bakery and on the street. The online world has also increasingly become critical for debate on the NGP. Anti-CSG voices tend to dominate this sphere, with around twenty Facebook pages largely or wholly dedicated to opposing the 9

10 NGP, as well as numerous Twitter accounts, Youtube videos, blogs and webpages. However, pro-csg groups and individuals are also active online, including both Santos and local group Yes 2 Gas in the Pilliga which have webpages, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts dedicated to their support of the NGP. While there are multiple opportunities for people to express their views on the controversy, our ongoing research of this case finds exclusionary tendencies, particularly in online spaces (see Hendriks, Duus, and Ercan 2016), as well as in some local venues. We relate these tendencies to ongoing contestation over who is entitled to have a say, where and how. At the centre of these contestations are competing constructions about who is likely to be most affected by the proposed gas project. By analysing these constructions we are better placed to understand the political dynamics of the controversy (our analytical goal) and to make recommendations about how the debate could be more inclusive (our normative goal). To better understand the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion as well as the nature of democratic activities involved in the NGP, the research team conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with key actors from the region of the proposed gas project (including the towns of Narrabri and Coonabarabran) in November 2015 and July These semi-structured interviews sought to identify (among other themes) the way in which these actors characterise the debate and their own involvement, who they think is affected by the NGP and thus should take part in determining its future, and what type of democratic activities and spaces they think offer a promising way forward when dealing with this issue. Our analysis draws on numerous other qualitative sources including policy and parliamentary documents, direct observations of protests, scientific reports, election campaign materials, Santos publications, commentaries, and selected media coverage from 2015 and 2016 (including broadsheet and social media). To explore constructions of affectedness the interview transcripts together with the other qualitative sources were systematically coded and analysed using the qualitative software, NVivo. The codes were based on a series of search terms to analyse affectedness, including characterisation of the debate (who should be included/excluded and why), as well as emerging notions of affectedness such as the majority or silent majority. Our analysis revealed three key constructions of affectedness, with each carrying different notions of what constitutes a legitimate public sphere that emerges in and around the controversy. Each construction defines the contours of the public sphere differently as well as 10

11 who and what democratic activity should be part of this sphere. As such, they also suggest three different mechanisms for legitimising societal decisions. They each employ different criteria for drawing the boundaries of the collective that is affected by the NGP: i) Affectedness in spatial terms: based on the geographical location of the controversy ii) Affectedness by numbers: based on the largest number of people who think the project will bring positive/negative impacts; and iii) Affectedness by issues: based on subjective identification with the project over what issues it raises. Each construction of affectedness emphasises certain criteria over others implying the relevance of certain actors and activities over others. Each also implicitly celebrates a particular set of democratic values and activities crucial for legitimising societal decisions. In doing so, they set boundaries of inclusion and exclusion in the public sphere differently. While there are some overlaps between each construction, it is possible to distinguish them from each other by paying attention to their implicit criteria for inclusion and exclusion, and the types of democratic activities they legitimise or delegitimise. Our analysis also reveals that each construction of affectedness is employed variously by actors on both sides of the debate. In other words, constructions of affectedness transcend interests with actors with opposing views on the NGP, sharing similar ideas on what it means to be affected. In what follows, we discuss the core characteristics of each construction and then outline how they are used by the actors on both sides of the debate to delegitimise certain democratic activities while legitimising others Spatial construction of affectedness: Insiders vs outsiders We are sick and tired of people travelling in, annoying us, getting on the television and telling the world what we think (Russell Stewart, quoted in Murphy 2016). One prevalent construction of affectedness in the NGP controverse is that based on the locality of the key actors. For those subscribing to a spatial construction of affectedness, the geographical boundaries of the Narrabri town, shire, petroleum exploration licence (PEL) area, or region variously defined, serve as a convenient discursive point of reference which legitimises actors inclusion in the debate. 11

12 This construction of affectedness is employed on both sides of the NGP debate. For both sides, it is closely associated with an understanding of residence in the local community. Only those people (sometimes even their forebears), groups or companies that are from the local region are seen as legitimate voices in the debate. Actors from both sides of the debate draw on this spatial construction of affectedness to delineate between legitimate locals and illegitimate outsiders. Implicit in the spatial construction of affected publics is the belief that the costs and benefits of the proposed NGP are predominantly local. Several local residents have made the point that us locals are the ones (positively or negatively) affected by the NGP, and that those from elsewhere do not have to live with the consequences of this project going ahead (or not). The pro-csg construction of affectedness (and the problem of fly-in fly-out protesters ) Some of those in support of the proposed gas project employ a local spatial construction of affectedness to highlight the local economic benefits of the project. Such a construction is central to the only community group publicly supporting the proposal, Yes2Gas from the Pilliga. Text on its main Facebook page image announces the project Great for the District, that it will deliver Local Jobs and Industry and how it is about drought proofing the local economy. The proponent of the project, Santos, also draws on a spatial construction of affectedness when promoting its project and benefits. It draws strongly on the notion of local community, of which it endeavours to be part. For instance, in a company information booklet it is stated that Santos aims to become a valued and respected member of the local communities which host our activities (Santos 2014, 17). The Santos website also includes numerous references and links to community, including encouragement for readers to participate in community site tours. Similarly, on its Facebook page (which is solely dedicated to the project), Santos is constructed as part of the local community with photos of the company employing and working with local towns people and farmers, and supporting local community events and sporting teams (Santos 2016; Hendriks, Duus, and Ercan 2016). With a focus firmly fixed on local people, the pro-csg construction of affectedness serves to delegitimise the activities and engagement of non-locals. Those opposing the project are labelled outsiders or out-of-towners who have come into the local community to protest 12

13 and stir up trouble 2. Consider for example, the following comments from one vocal supporter of the gas project, Russell Stewart, President of Narrabri Chamber of Commerce: We are sick and tired of people travelling in, annoying us, getting on the television and telling the world what we think...we don t have a problem with coal seam gas, we have a problem with out-of-towners coming here and revving things up (quoted in Murphy 2016). Concerns expressed by residents from neighbouring towns are not taken seriously as they are considered outside the local community. These outsiders are also seen as more likely to engage in radical activities, which helps to differentiate them from local CSG opponents: like we've had people who have locked themselves into dragons on the road and that sort of thing during the protest activity, but they were not local people. They were from Coonabarabran or Coonamble. They are not local people to here (Interviewee #10, ). Some pro-csg actors also downplay the political significance of the social media conversations against the NGP by characterising social media as a space for outsiders, rather than locals. Most of the people who are active on social media in relation to our project here aren't locally based. There's a couple that are. Most of them aren't from around here. Most of them we don't even know they'll be Sydney based or whatever, or north coast, obviously the north coast over that area. Partly that. Partly that if you actually delve into it some of them haven't even been here (Interviewee #10, ). More generally, any democratic activities or particular arguments associated with outsiders are delegitimised in the same sweep as delegitimising the actors themselves, whether that be direct action protest, social media debate, or climate change concerns. 2 There is also a more negative thread of Othering in regards to outside protesters, with activists being described in derogatory terms on several Facebook sites, with highly colourful language such as scum and zombie style clowns Sweeping generalisations about the role of outsider activists get made made along the lines of activists being paid to get arrested and their function being as a rent a crowd, rather than genuine participants in the debate. It is worth noting however that vilification and stereotyping gets used by people across both sides of the debate. Indeed, the antagonistic language that gets directed at an individual level has been noted by many of our intervieews as being an unhelpful and harmful aspect of the debate. 13

14 Anti-CSG construction and the problem of fly-in fly-out workers Those opposing the gas project at times also draw on a spatial construction of affectedness to emphasise the region s farmers, landholders and future generations that face the negative impacts of the proposed gas project. The geographical region referred to by the anti-csg actors is generally larger than that of the pro-csg actors, incorporating individuals and groups throughout the North West region. Their protest events have often celebrated the coming together of CSG opponents from across this large area, such as the big picture events held in Narrabri in 2015 and 2016 (Northern Daily Leader 2015). Anti-CSG actors tend not to use the spatial construction of affectedness to actively exclude particular democratic activities, but rather use to to delegitimise CSG activity itself. In this construction, they frame Santos as an illegitimate outsider that brings limited local benefits. For example, local farmer and anti-csg activist, Sarah Ciesiolka, argues that Santos proposed project offers little employment benefit for the local community, with most of the jobs in the construction phase of the project going to fly-in-fly-out workers (Ciesiolka 2016). Here the beneficiaries of the project are constructed as outsiders flying in to take community employment. Apart from anti- and pro-csg individuals and/or groups, the local media also uses a spatial construction of affected publics to determine which stories on the NGP it will publish. For example, a local paper made an editorial decision not to cover various protest actions against the NGP (some of which included arrests) because the protesters were not local, and therefore their actions were considered not to be of interest to locals. As the editor explains: readers who buy my paper, they are interested in what the local people have to say I think one of the things [the outsider protesters] lost sight of is that for local people, local people are everything. We're not even interested in things in Coonabarabran or Moree [towns respectively located 125 and 100 km from Narrabri], unless it seriously affected us. So, these were all people from Byron Bay, Sydney, Blue Mountains, getting arrested. But what do my readers care about that? (Interviewee #28, ). As we can see from this statement, while the paper may not purport to have a specific position on CSG (either pro or anti), employing a spatial construction of affectedness in terms 14

15 of what is newsworthy has the effect of excluding certain voices in the debate, namely those not located specifically in Narrabri. Implications for public debate and legitimacy The spatial construction of affectedness has important implications for the way local debate over CSG plays out. On the one hand, it has a strong discursive power in debates over the NGP it is used to generate solidarity amongst otherwise disparate actors by those bridging people from different socio-economic background and political affiliations. It also holds the appeal of being based on tacit knowledge knowledge that is gained through place-based practical experiences and embedded within particular environments (Cruikshank 2005). On the other hand, however, a spatial based construction of affectedness geographically limits the discursive scope of what the controversy is about. It places local concerns such as local jobs and business or local impacts on water and land before state-wide, national or international issues like energy security or climate change. Democratic legitimacy is established by seeking to discredit actors, activities and arguments according to their degree of non-localness. Following on from that, any democratic activity sponsored by outsiders (such as protests) can thus be framed as being less legitimate than those that are seen to privilege local voices In terms of the local debate, exactly how the affected local area is defined becomes a contested topic in itself; is it the town, the shire, the PEL, the catchment, the region? And for both sides of the debate, some outsiders are more palatable than others, depending on whether the outsiders are helping or hindering local arguments and efforts to promote their particular position in the NGP. Outsiders are also put into a position of being forced in this way to legitimise themselves in relation to the local context. Democratic activities held in the local area in particular must have local people heavily involved if they are to be seen as legitimate by the general public within Narrabri Numbers based construction of affectedness: Majority vs minority One of the things I ve learned as a politician is that numbers are important. Numbers are important obviously in the Senate Chamber and numbers are important as in amounts of people that protest (Lazarus 2016). 15

16 Another common construction of affectedness we found in the NGP is a number-based construction of affectedness. This construction emphasises the notion of majority as the key group that needs to be taken into consideration for decision making or representation within the debate. Although the issue at stake is complex and requires a decision-making mechanism that goes beyond aggregation and counting heads, the question of what the majority wants has been used as a key reference point to whether or how the project should go ahead, by both anti- and pro-csg actors. In numerical terms, the majority refers to a number that is larger than half of the total. In the case of Narrabri controversy however, it is a term that is not always associated with precise numerical calculations. Rather, actors from both sides of the debate use the majority as a powerful discursive tool to validate their own position and to confirm that they are right. Apart from being associated with anti- and pro-csg positions, majority is also used to describe the position of those that are not vocal about their positions for various reasons, namely the silent majority. Pro-CSG construction of number-based affectedness Actors with a pro-csg position tend to use the construct of majority in order to invalidate particular activities of anti-csg actors. For example, they question the results of door-todoor community surveys carried out by anti-gas groups which apparently showed that a majority of landholders and residents in the North West do not want to live in an industrial gasfield. The following excerpt from Guardian reflects the way community surveys are being delegitimised by those adopting a pro-csg position. They usually describe these surveys as an activist tactic which is inherently biased: Tiny towns and communities have declared themselves gasfield free, attaching nowfamiliar yellow triangles to their gates. It s a little disingenuous the one question asked is: Do you want your road and property to remain gasfield free? Few people would say no to that 95% of communities in the area have agreed but it has proved a potent tactic (Alcorn 2015). While sceptical about the anti-csg construction of majority as affected groups, those adopting a pro-csg approach still believe that it is important to find out what the majority wants. Yet to them, if to gain some credibility, it should be done by an independent agency and not by those directly involved in the debate. 16

17 Some of the pro-csg groups (e.g. Yes2 Gas) use the construct of silent majority to construct affected groups. They believe the majority of local residents are positively affected by the NGP yet silent for a variety of reasons ranging from political apathy to the fear of intimidation and social ostracism if they speak out (eg. Interviewees #4, ; #8, ; #27, ; Brown 2014). The pro-csg groups claim to bring a political voice to the voiceless majority. In doing so they define apathy as a legitimate position within the debate. The below excerpt from an interview with a local pro-csg actor illustrates how silent majority is characterised in Narrabri, and how the pro-csg actors use this characterisation (strategically) to reinforce their position within the debate. I think Narrabri, I think majority. You can t put a number on any of this, whether you re for or against or on the fence. I feel like a lot of Narrabri really don t have an opinion either way. That's the way I feel. There s a good, strong support for the gas, definitely I think a lot of people; it is just something that s going to be part of their lives. I just really don't think they have an opinion either way. It s just I don t think they think that it affects them but I think if you broke it down and said to someone, Do you want increased employment opportunities, they d say, Oh yeah, I want that How do you feel about CSG? they d probably go, Oh, we don t really have an opinion. Okay. That s fair enough (Interviewee #4, ). Anti-CSG construction of number-based affectedness Those adopting an anti-csg position also employ a number based construction of affectedness albeit for different purposes. They usually use the Lock the Gate sign, the yellow triangle to communicate that theirs is a majority position. They often refer to the community-conducted surveys that began in the region in 2013, inspired by anti-csg activists in the Northern Rivers of NSW. Volunteers in each community went door to door to ask households to ask do you want your land (or road) gasfield free?. The surveys yielded an overall yes response rate of over 90% (Kennedy 2014). They surveys were also used as a means to mobilised people against the NGP. In this context, the number based construction of affectedness, and the notion of majority has become part of the anti-csg campaign (and its mobiliasation efforts); a foundation for 17

18 further protest and resistance. For instance, the survey results were quoted in a full page anti- CSG newspaper ad: More than 90% of landholders representing 2.5 millions [sic] of hectares of land don t want coal seam has, according to a survey (see Hogan 2014). Two years later, the results were also discussed in a Senate Hearing held in Narrabri: we cover all aspects of community including Indigenous views and we find that the result of 94 per cent across three million hectares states pretty clearly how the majority of people are feeling about this. The process itself is actually proving that community see the threat coming at them and they will stand united to have their voice heard (Kuhn 2016, sec. Select Committee on Unconventional Gas Mining, 45). The numbers showing the majority position are also used in most community protests to reinforce the key messages of the protests. While the anti-csg positions use the notion of majority in conjunction with protests, and view it as a ground to continue protesting, the pro-csg position uses majority to mark the final phase of the controversy, and as noted above to delegitimise community protests. The idea of linking the notion of majority with further protests is also manifest in the following statement by Senator Glenn Lazarus: Until hopefully we get to a stage where numbers are just overwhelming and the government will have to sit up and take notice and stop this scourge that we call coal seam gas (Lazarus 2016). Implications for public debate and legitimacy The number-based construction of affectedness has significant democratic implications especially when it comes to the construction of majorities in complex controversies. Here we see how the majority is used as a powerful discursive construct which is rarely questioned in the local public debate. Democratic theorists have notions of the majority' but these differ from those used loosely in public debates. This complicates the process of democratic legitimacy because people are talking about different kinds of majorities. Numbers provide a strong discursive tool to validate and legitimise one s position. However in our case the number based construction of affectedness is used variously by actors on both 18

19 sides of the debate. Consequently it appears to lose its discursive power in the context of the local debate. The community surveys depicting the majority position suffer from legitimacy and credibility deficits. Furthermore, while seeking to find out what majority wants, the community surveys seem to reduce a complex decision to a case for yes or no. In doing so, they create bigger legitimacy issues than fixing the existing ones, as the surveys tend to close down or limit the prospects for decision-making through open debate and communication. This, as we discuss below, affects the democratic quality of the debate in public sphere adversely Issue-based construction of affectedness: Local vs national/global I mean this is an issue I think everyone should have their say on. I don't think it matters where you are (Interview #26, ). I don't think it's our issue. I don't even think it's our state issue, I think it's very much an Australian issue, if not a world issue (Interviewee #20, ). A third construction of affectedness in the NGP case is one related to issues of concern. This construction adopts an expansive view of affected ; it takes the controversy to a range of entities (people, species, infrastructures, services etc) well beyond those in the PEL (gas licence area) or immediate local context. Driving the definition of affectedness here is the transboundary and also non-human nature of the impacts of the NGP, whether defined in positive or negative terms. This construction of affectedness is made up of many elements that include the local scale but are not necessarily bound by it. For instance, the impacts on groundwater might go so far to impact the Great Artesian Basin, which will impact local and regional landholders, but this has ramifications for food and fibre security for Australia and beyond, making it a public interest issue. Likewise, the issue of energy security is not necessarily experienced locally, but the project s success or otherwise is seen by some actors as being an issue of energy supply and security. The issue based construction of affectedness relaxes the boundaries of inclusion; it suggests that we should give [at least in principle] virtually everyone a vote on virtually everything virtually everywhere in the world (Goodin 2007, 64). As with others we have identified, the issue-based construction is employed to different effect by actors on both sides of the debate. 19

20 Pro-CSG construction of issue-based affectedness The pro-csg construction of issue-based affectedness seeks to frame the potential benefits of the NGP broadly, beyond Narrabri and the region. It centres on the project s impact on NSW energy security and gas prices for NSW consumers. Pro-CSG actors have tended to deploy this construction largely to non-local audiences since energy security has not been a significant local concern. The peak body representing Australia s oil and gas exploration and production industry, the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) consistently have made the case in the media and in other forums such as inquiry submissions that NSW is experiencing real and pressing supply issues. In one blog post (which also appeared in the Newcastle Herald), the Director of APPEA s government relations department directly made the point that anti-gas protests in NSW were slowing down the project s approval thus having a direct material impact for households and business in NSW (Lamont 2016). In the same piece, the author later stated Industry respects the democratic right to protest but private landowners and workers should be protected from vandalism, theft and harassment. Thus, in terms of democratic activitities, on-ground protests that slow down what they view as unacceptable intrusions are portrayed as illegal and detrimental to the public interest (defined in narrow economic terms). Santos is another a pro-csg actor that employs an issue-based construction of affectedness. In a Santos submission to the NSW Legislative Council Select Committee on gas and liquid fuels supply in 2015, for instance, the company directly linked the project s success with gas prices and energy security stating that the project would enable self-sufficiency in gas supply for NSW. In this submission, they blame activists and their choice of protest tactics for playing a role in maintaining high gas prices: Anti-fossil fuel activists have also played a role with a deliberate strategy of causing increased costs in an attempt to prevent ongoing supply of this essential product (Santos Limited 2015). 3 3 In March 2016, the NSW government passed legislation designed to curtail the impact of protesters with most of the changes applicable from June The legislation covers new aggravated trespass offences (from $550 to a maximum of $5,500), expanded offences for interfering with a mine (a maximum jail sentence of seven years), and new police powers as well as expansion to coal seam gas mining. There has been significant backlash with commentators suggesting it reads like an industry wish list (Hannam 2016). Indeed, activists have sought to use this legislative change to highlight the close relationship between Santos and the NSW government, through obtaining correspondence between these two parties in the lead up to the legislation. The s were obtained by The Wilderness Society under freedom of information laws and reveal a significant level of cooperation from the government on information requests by Santos (Hannam 2016). 20

21 Santos and APPEA delegitimise protests by depicting them as activities that stand in opposition to open and transparent dialogue based on facts rather than through fear and threatening behaviour (Ward and Mitchell 2014). To them, to claim legitimacy democratic activity should centre on formal regulatory approval processes which have historically favoured industry expansion. Anti-CSG construction of affectedness Many in the anti-csg movement also employ an issue-based construction of affectedness. Most importantly, they seek to show that the NGP is a proposal that affects more people that those exclusively residing in defined extraction area. A common theme relates to the transboundary nature of both the technology itself (in terms of risks to groundwater and pollution of light and airbourne particles) as well as industry (Santos) operations (pipelines, trucks etc.). In their eyes, the potential risks to groundwater make it not only a concern for farmers who draw on the water of the Great Artesian Basin, but indeed one for millions of people who rely on the food produced in the GAB (Interviewee #23, ). The NGP s contribution to climate change is another issue that raised by opponents, but is less dominant compared to the groundwater/food security/pollution/degradation issues, and may be more prevalent among non-local anti-gas campaigners. Finally, a common series of concerns are linked to the issue of industry and government collusion (eg. Interviewee #9, ; #15, ; #16, ; #20, ). The adverse effects of this relationship expands the boundary of affectedness which includes, but is not limited by the local scale. Many anti-csg actors associated with the NGP believe they are sidelined from many formal political arenas. As such they seek ways to popularise their concerns by making them politically intelligible. One way they do this is to promote their issue-based notion of affectedness in both conventional and informal spaces of of political expression. Examples of conventional activities include information forums which feature trustworthy scientists to comment on the risks of CSG. A notable example of this was the Independent Coal Seam Gas Science forum held in March Significantly, the organisers of this forum chose the NSW Parliament in Sydney as the location for the event, suggesting a desire to be visible to empowered actors. The organisers made reference to the Chief Scientist s report to as motivation for holding the event, again suggesting that a mechanism for inclusion requires getting the right information to decision makers. 21