-
-
- EDITORIAL More on
concerns raised over new National Code
-
- Starting on July 1, 1997 a new
Telecommunications National Code will
take effect which will govern the conduct
of the telecommunications industry. There
have been concerns expressed from many
sectors of the community as to the
implications of the new Code. Most
importantly, despite assurances to
implement proper planning processes from
July 1, the Federal Government has
included "transitional
provisions" to ensure
telecommunications infrastructure is
largely in place before the new Code
takes effect.
-
- ·The roll out of aerial cabling will
continue under the existing exemptions
from local, state and Territory
environmental and planning laws until
September 30, 1997.
-
- ·The construction of mobile phone base
stations (towers) that have substantially
been completed by June 30, 1997 will also
continue to be exempt until December 31,
1997.
-
- Under the present Code, responsibility
for regulating the installation of
telecommunications facilities has rested
with the federal government, with
exemptions from local, state and
territory planning and environmental
laws. Instead the carriers only have to
comply with the existing Code.
-
- Because there is no requirement to
consult with communities under the old
Code, telecommunications infrastructure
roll-out has gone on with virtually no
input from affected communities.
-
- The exemptions from democratic
principals, for the benefit of corporate
interests over community rights and
community concern over possible long term
adverse health effects from mobile phone
base stations, has resulted in growing
community and local government
opposition.
-
- So how will the new Telecommunications
Code affect communities? To answer that
question the Australian Local Government
(ALGA) on 14 February 1997 released an
analysis of the new Code and how it
compares to the old.
-
- Following are some excerpts from the
ALGA's analysis which reinforce the
previous article (p12).
-
-
- Notification and Consultation:
-
- "The new Code still fails to provide
an adequate process for consultation and
dialogue between Councils, the community
and carriers, but rather a token process
which a carrier must undertake in certain
circumstances, without any real
obligation to respond to community
concerns.
-
- The procedures for notification under the
new Code are inadequate, with carriers
obliged to place an advertisement only in
a major daily newspaper, rather than
local newspapers which are received by
all local residents.
-
- Of particular concern under the new Code
is Clause 25(1) which does not allow
councils to notify the community about
low impact proposals.
-
- Clause 20(4) is also of concern as it
offers no indication as to how the
particular significance of areas to
indigenous peoples is to established,
when in most instances they would not be
notified of proposals due to the low
impact classification in rural areas.
- Consultation, in the sense of a meeting
with the community, is only required in
the case of high impact facilities.
Otherwise the public can only make
written submissions. There is no
requirement for face-to-face discussions
with councils. Timeframes for community
consultation and notification are to
short. Carriers are only obliged to
undertake community consultation once on
any proposal. This is unacceptable if
significant changes are made to a
proposal following initial consultations.
-
- In all instances carriers are not
required to provide information to the
relevant authorities if it is of a
confidential commercial nature or relates
to the security of the network, unless
they receive a written undertaking that
this information will not be divulged.
This provision could be used to withhold
information needed for community
consultation.
-
- The notification and consultation
requirements under the new Code raise
serious concerns and do not provide
Councils and the community with a real
opportunity to engage carriers in debate
and to promote local area planning.
-
-
- Information Requirements:
-
- The information requirements under the
new Code are nominally greater but remain
inadequate and in some places
contradictory Another flaw relates to
information requirements for low impact
facilities. Carriers are not required to
provide any environmental impact
assessment,any statement in relation to
noise and AS 1055, or to present all
relevant plans and drawings. Schedule 3
further reduces the information required
to the public, including in key areas
such as alternative tower sites and the
dimension of facilities.
-
-
- Alternative Tower sites:
-
- The new Code enables Councils to propose
two alternative sites for a proposed
tower which must be considered by the
carrier. However, carriers are free to
reject these alternatives without close
scrutiny of their decisions (except
perhaps for high impact towers referred
to the Environment Secretary.
-
-
- Local Government's ability to influence
the Carriers:
-
- The new Code places a significantly
higher number of requirements on carriers
and authorities, ultimately without
providing any real opportunities for
Councils and the community to exert
effective influence, let alone, control,
over the installation of broadband aerial
cabling or towers. The provisions of the
new Code place a significant onus on
councils in terms of time and resources.
-
- The ALGA analysis overall conclusion on
the new Code is that "Most of the
changes included in the new Code under
the guise of introducing a
"stricter" regime are
essentially cosmetic. In several key
respects the new Code offers an easier
path, provided they "go through the
motions". Much activity will
continue under the old Code anyway."
-
-
- In addition, under the new Code, when
negotiations between a council and a
carrier are deemed to have broken down,
the Australian Communications Authority
(ACA) steps in to make a final decision.
The ACA, formed by merging Austel and
Spectrum Management Agency, will have the
power to override State and Territory
rules.
-
- As far as the final decision on what type
of facilities (towers) will be classified
as "low impact"and therefore
exempt from State/Territory laws, this is
still to be decided and will be governed
by a yet to be formed Ministerial Code of
Practice. Essentially, the division
between low, medium and high impact
facilities is made purely on aesthetic
grounds. The possible health hazards
issue is totally ignored by both the old
and new Codes.
-
- For more independent information on the
new Telecommunications National Code,
please contact:
-
- ALGA: John Wells on 02-9261 1381
-
- Senator Lyn Allison's office on
- 03-9416 1880
|
