The " fourth " tier of government.

Starting a major new project in Australia normally entails scrutiny by the Federal government. Provided that the concept does not run foul of the national guidelines the next hurdle is the state government and it's intricate maize of political hurdles and quicksand. Having survived that, the last obstacle should be getting a development application approved by the local council - but it seems that there is another hurdle now in place.
This is evidenced by a plan for the New South Wales government to approve a lease of land in Killalea reserve for the construction of tourist accommodation and facilities.
The idea is soundly condemned by many local people who want this famous area preserved in it's natural state and by surfers who regard it's two beaches as iconic.
The state government steam rolled it's approval and the plan is now proceeding to get the nod from the local council - but a " fourth tier of government " has emerged with a plan by unions to impose a black ban on the project.
The NSW Fire Brigade, The Australian Worker's Union, and the giant Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union have threatened to stop this project in it's tracks.
That raises an interesting principle. If the elected tiers of government agree on a project, does an unelected body of people whose job is to earn a living by carrying out the wishes of an employer have the right to dictate whether or not that project will proceed ?
It is doubtful if the law provides recognition for that to happen, and members of a union should be aware that by becoming a member of a union they accept responsibility for the actions of that body. Should they impose an illegal ban that prevents a project proceeding - and therefore cause financial loss to the proprietors of that project - then the union can be sued for that loss - and as individuals they can become liable for any damages imposed.
So often it is union bosses who dictate policy and the members simply follow like sheep. They would be wise to insist on having their say on any proposed black bans - and be aware of the possible legal and financial consequences. Failure to do that could have catastrophic consequences for unionists and their families.