Draft Telecommunications Code

(Article reprinted from EMRAA News, Sept. 1996 )

When finally it appeared, unheralded, in July the new Draft Telecommunications Code lived up to expectations. It was long, couched in language not conducive to easy assimilation, gave the public just ten days to respond and provided the wrong fax number for submissions! Worse, it contained little joy for the community regarding the siting of telecommunications facilities.

The following is a brief rundown of the provisions of the new Code and its implications for community health. The objects of the 1996 document remain unchanged from the 1994 Code and contain no reference to the health or safety of the community.

The new Code requires carriers to co - locate new facilities, either cables or towers. While EMRAA believes that the co-location of above ground cables (if we must have them at all) is a good thing, we are concerned that co-location of telecommunications towers will result in a considerable amplification of radiation emitted from each site, to the detriment, possibly, of the surrounding community's health. Co-location does not apply, however, to activities notified under the old Code. (Could it be just coincidence, then, that Optus proceeded, with lightning speed, to notify councils in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne of its intentions to proceed with cabling, just prior to the release of the new Code?)

The Draft Code requires carriers to comply with some recommendations by Council, Heritage Commission or State/Territory governments . However, it does not give these authorities the power to prevent the activities of the carriers and, worse, it gives the carriers three avenues for escape. They can ignore recommendations of the authorities if the carrier feels they are not feasible on (i) economic grounds, (ii) technical grounds or (iii) they would be incompatible with the configuration of its telecommunications network.

Unlike the other Code, the new document requires carriers to prepare a corporate environmental plan which is to be made publicly available. The plan should outline measures the carriers will undertake to minimize pollution, adverse health effects, unnecessary use of resources etc.

Carriers are obliged by the new Code to provide notice of their activities to the relevant State/Territory authority, Chairman of the Heritage Commission, Secretary of the Department of Environment, Sport and Territories and - an innovation in this Code - pay an application fee to the local council.

Notification to the public, however, is not a matter of course. This Code provides that a State/Territory authority or the Chairperson "may decide"...in the case of a proposal of high or medium impact - whether the public should be notified of the proposal and, in the case of a proposal of high impact, whether the community should be consulted on the proposal. Moreover, it gives the Secretary the right to decide that "a proposal should not be publicly reviewed."

EMRAA is outraged by this disregard for community right -to -know and demands that the community be consulted on any proposal that relates to its health, environment or the anesthetics of an area. In the event of objections being lodged by community or councils, the Code provides only for a voluntary response from the carriers. There is no obligation on them to modify proposals, nor any independent arbitrator in disputes.

The Code provides that AUSTEL "is authorized to give written directions to a carrier about how the carrier should comply with its obligations under the Code."

However, AUSTEL does not have the authority to deal with infringements of the Code, nor is it interested in doing so. (We are informed that no fines have ever been imposed on a carrier despite breaches of the Code.) EMRAA does not believe that the powers of AUSTEL are adequate to guarantee the rights and the safety of the community.

Finally, the Draft Code is based o Australian Standard 2772 which considers only the thermal (heating) effects of radiation and not the more subtle athermal effects that EMRAA believes may affect health. AS 2772 requires the measurement of only one frequency at a time and makes no provision for the cumulative effects of the multiple frequencies to which people are constantly exposed. Moreover this Standard is effectively meaningless, as all telecommunications towers for mobile phones and TV aerial cables would easily comply with it, perhaps by a factor of 100 or more.

EMRAA regards the Draft Telecommunications Code, to our immense disappointment, as window dressing for the existing unpalatable formula of favouring the rights of industry over those of the community. Essentially, as in the previous Code, it allows carriers to conduct "prescribed activities" without regard to state/territory. council or community concern. This is not only undemocratic, but indirectly contravenes Senator Alston's promises when in Opposition.

EMRAA challenges a fundamental objective of the Code that of "facilitating the rapid development of efficient telecommunications network infrastructure..." We believe that giving carriers powers to override normal State and Territory planning and environment laws, in the interests of speed, is grossly negligent. Furthermore, it contravenes common sense. Let's ensure that the technology is safe first, before we install it at breakneck speed !

The Draft Code reflects virtually no acknowledgement of the considerable threat that telecommunications facilities may present to human health. In the light of increasing scientific evidence linking health problems to EMF/EMR exposure, we believe that community health should be a primary consideration in deciding where to locate and how to build facilities. We believe, too, that funds should be allocated for more research into the health effects of EMR exposure.

EMRAA News is published by the ElectroMagnetic Radiation Alliance of Australia. Contact through the Sutherland Shire Environment Centre, PO Box 589, Sutherland 2232 NSW. Ph (02) 9545 3077 Fax (02) 9542 3580