- NSW Local Government
concerns over Federal telecommunications
policy
-
- NSW Local Government Association
president voices concerns on Federal
Govt. telecommunications policy.
-
- On March 4, 1997, the Australian
Institute of Environmental Health, NSW
Division, the Australian Institute of
Building Surveyors, NSW Chapter, and the
Local Government & Shires
Associations held a one day seminar,
titled 'Electromagnetic Radiation In The
Environment: A Balanced view'.
-
- The opening address of this seminar was
given by Councillor Peter Woods,
President of the NSW Local Government
Association. In his opening remarks, Cr.
Woods expressed both his association's
concerns and those growing in the general
community, as to the impact of
telecommunications on the community.
- His address is reproduced here in its
entirety:
-
- "The NSW Local Government
Association and the Australian Institute
of Environmental Health are delighted
that you are able to join us for today's
conference on electromagnetic radiation.
We are particularly pleased to welcome
our speakers, including Dr Neil Cherry
who has travelled from New Zealand for
the occasion. Thank you to the Australian
Institute of Environmental Health for
your co-operation with this conference,
particularly to Loloma Wren, who has
adeptly handled the enormous
responsibility of organising the event.
-
- This conference is particularly timely.
Electromagnetic radiation is and issue of
increasing public concern as communities
react strongly to the monstrous web of
overhead wires and cables that adorn our
streets and to the unchecked
proliferation of telecommunications
towers.
-
- People are angry. Aerial cables,
powerlines and telecommunications towers
spoil the appearance of their streets,
devalue their properties and may even
threaten the health of their families.
This anger is being expressed in the form
of picket lines, protest meetings, legal
action and in the formation of countless
action groups.
-
- Public concern about power lines is not
new. Both Australia and overseas the
community has taken strong action against
proposed power lines. Perhaps the most
well-known example is the Brunswick to
Richmond protest to a proposed 220 KV
overhead powerline which was intended to
run through Melbourne's inner suburbs.
After a five year community campaign the
line was eventually undergrounded. Less
successful but just as vigorous was the
protest against a high voltage
transmission line from Mount Piper to
Marulan which ended up in the Land and
Environment Court. Closer to home,
residents campaigned for almost five
years for modifications to a high power
transmission line from Spring-wood to
Winmallee and Warumu. The original
proposal for 2 lines at 66 KV and a new
substation was finally amended to one
line at 22 KV.
-
- As a result of public concern, a report
on high voltage power lines was conducted
by Sir Harry Gibbs who recommended that
power authorities adopt a policy of
"prudent avoidance". This
policy has been embraced by the
Australia's peak power group, the ESAA.
-
- Public concern about telecommunications
towers is - like the technology itself -
a recent phenomenon. Many people believe
that the low level (athermal) radiation
they emit poses a serious health risk and
cite a number of scientific studies in
support of their argument. The Government
and telecommunications carriers, on the
other hand, maintain that the facilities
must be safe because they comply with the
Australian Standard (AS2772.1) and the
only conclusive proof for health problems
is at higher (thermal or heating) levels
of radiation.
-
- Whereas power authorities are subject to
Federal, State and Local Government laws,
telecommunications carriers have not
been.
-
- Over the last 12 months the community has
taken a number of significant initiatives
on the issue of EMR. In March 1996 EMRAA
(Electromagnetic Radiation Alliance of
Australia) was established to meet the
growing need for information and advice
to provide a network linking concerned
people. Melbourne Cables Down Under was
followed by Sydney Cables Down Under,
then Sutherland Shire Cables Down Under,
with plans for a national organisation
under way. Two national journals specific
to EMR have appeared: EMRAA News and
Electromagnets Australia/New Zealand.
-
- And public concern about EMF is clearly
reaching the Federal Government.
-
- In October last year the Minister,
Senator Richard Alston, issued a press
release announcing a $4.5 million package
for the issue of electromagnetic
radiation and health. The package will
contain three elements: public education,
support for the World Health Organisation
and research.
-
- The public education campaign may be the
first of these to materialise. Some
sources suggest that this is really
little more than an advertising campaign
aimed at persuading the public that
electromagnetic radiation does not
present a health problem, which is the
official line of the Department of
Communications and the Arts. We will soon
see.
-
- The seconded area to be funded is the
World Health Organisation's five year
study into the biological effects of
athermal radiation. However, the World
Health Organisation and its Chairman, Dr
Michael Repacholi, have taken the strong
view that electromagnetic radiation does
not cause health problems. In fact, Dr
Repacholi even pursued this line at the
end of a recent conference during which
speaker after speaker had claimed that
there are biological effects! This does
cast some doubt over the impartiality of
the WHO!
-
- Lastly, funds are earmarked for research
into the EMR and health. To this point
much research into the health effects of
EMR has been funded by telecommunications
carriers or electricity supply
authorities. This raises serious
questions as to the reliability of the
results. The LGA would like to see funds
for research distributed by an
independent panel comprising local
government and community members. In this
way, the public could have far more
confidence in the findings.
-
- A sceptic might be tempted to regard the
Government's $4.5 million package as a
desperate attempt to turn aside community
wrath. At least two components: the
public education program and support to
WHO seem to be designed to placate the
community... to convince us that there is
no risk to public health and safety from
the telecommunications industry.
-
- And the Government may well hope it
works!
-
- In January two new documents appeared
that will change the way the
telecommunications industry is regulated
in Australia. The new Telecommunications
Code is already in force and a package of
Telecommunications Bills will be debated
in Parliament in March and should be
enacted by the end of June when the
industry is deregulated.
-
- Even the way these documents were
launched shows that the Government has
scant regard for community opinion. Both
appeared during the busy December/January
period. They were not widely advertised.
There was very little time allowed for
public submission and the Code was
finalised one day after submissions were
due. This means that either AUSTEL
employs an impressive array of speed
readers, or that public opinion was
totally ignored!
-
- Together the new Telecommunications Code
and Telecommunications Bills entrench the
rights of carriers over those of the
community. Again.
- Some of their provisions are as follows:
-
- The bills provide for the entry of new
competitors in the telecommunications
market after July 1. This will mean that
we will see more carriers, more mobile
phone towers and more cables.
-
- The bills provide for the establishment
of new regulatory authority for the
telecommunications industry, the
Australian Communications Authority (ACA)
which will be formed by merging AUSTEL
and Spectrum Management Agency. The ACA
will have the power to arbitrate in
disputes between a carrier and the
public, State Government or Council. The
bills list a number of considerations
that the ACA must take into account in
arbitrating such disputes. But these do
not include the health concerns that
feature so strongly among the community's
complaints.
-
- From July 1, carriers will be subject to
State Territory laws unless, that is, the
states try to contravene the will of the
carriers! In the event of a dispute, the
ACA will be able to provide a carrier
with immunity from state laws.
-
- There will also be a number of other
significant immunities from state and
territory laws. Low impact facilities -
which haven't yet been defined - will be
immune, so that carriers can obtain
quicker approvals. This could mean that a
mobile phone tower - on which several
carriers are co-located - does not need
to be approved!
-
- Maintenance activities will also be
exempt from state laws. This means that
facilities can be altered and replaced
without approval. Effectively, a carrier
could increase the capacity of a mobile
phone tower without notifying any
authority or the surrounding community.
This exemption will also allow carriers
to lop vegetation without approval.
- The telecommunications bills also provide
for a "Ministerial Code of
Practice" to be devised. However,
they do not specify what this Code would
contain or whether the public would be
consulted in the process of setting it
up. This Ministerial Code opens the way
for a Minister to authorise a facility
without any controls or public
consultation.
-
- At first reading, the bills seem to
provide relief from the spectre of more
uncontrolled aerial cabling. They state
that after June 30, all cabling must be
installed underground (unless subscribers
agree to overhead installation) and that
a working group will be set up by the
Minister to consider under-grounding
cables and other utilities.
-
- However, the Telecommunications Code
provides the carriers with immunity for
an extra three months - ie till September
30 - by which time aerial cabling could
well be complete in the majority of
Australian cities. Another convenient
loophole for the carriers is that cables
of less than 1.3 mm will not be required
to be undergrounded.
-
- The bills provide stricter requirements
on carriers to co-locate facilities in
order to overcome shortage of suitable
sites. If mobile phone towers are
classified as 'low impact' facilities,
they could be installed at existing sites
without consultation or approval and this
would increase the radiation levels to
which the surrounding community is
subject.
-
- In their present form the bills give
precedence to a national communications
network over public health. They concede
no risk from electromagnetic radiation
and require carriers to comply "with
recognised industry standards".
However, as other speakers will point
out, there is considerable evidence that
the Australian Standard AS2772.1 is quite
inadequate to protect public health.
- Finally, the bills aim to make additional
spectrum available to carriers at the
earliest opportunity. This presents us
with the frightening possibility of yet
more electromagnetic radiation from yet
more sources with little regard for
community health.
-
- It is my firm opinion that as long as the
Federal Government continues to
subordinate the rights of the community
to those of industry, public anger and
resentment will continue to mount. People
will not continue to endure the denial of
their democratic rights. They will not
stand idly by while the health of their
families is jeopardised.
-
- It is most certainly in the best
interests of the Federal Government and
industry to consider the wishes of the
Australian public and to involve them in
decisions about the telecommunications
and power industries. Without
participation in the planning and
decision making process, the public will
have little confidence in the outcomes
and anger is likely to be vented in
protests such as the ones I have
mentioned.
-
- In the absence of any credible leadership
from the Federal Government on this
issue, it is falling to councils across
Australia to take a stand to protect the
community.
-
- As a result of public pressure, councils
are implementing planning policies for
the location of mobile phone towers.
These policies aim to achieve the desires
results for carriers while minimising the
health risk to residents.
-
- This sort of precautionary approach is
essential given the risk of this new
technology has not yet been fully
explored.
-
- It is an approach that could well be
emulated by the Federal Government."
-
- Cr. Peter Woods.
-
|
