- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 21 October 2004
Mobile Phone Towers
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 11 of 47
| Next Item »
Page: 8
Debate resumed from 23 September.
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [11.33 a.m.]: When this debate was last before the House I made a number of comments on the original motion moved by Ms Sylvia Hale and the amendment moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe. I stated that for a number of reasons, which I outlined briefly, the Government would not support the motion, despite having some sympathy for it. I briefly reiterate that I think the Opposition's amendment was an action of desperation and essentially an attempt to avoid criticism of the Federal Government by deleting the original motion and replacing it with the motion that focused only on the State Government. Given the Federal Government's constitutional telecommunications power, it seemed a rather strange course for the Opposition to take.
It also struck me as extremely strange and very worrying that the Opposition's amendment called on the Government to use the metropolitan strategy document as an opportunity to examine the issues. I express concern that members of The Nationals and others who represent the enormous areas of this State that are not covered by the metropolitan strategy might feel slightly alarmed that the Opposition thinks it is suitable to move an amendment which seems to suggest that there are no mobile phone towers or concerns related to them among communities anywhere in this State outside the metropolitan area of Sydney. I can assume only that the amendment moved by the Hon. Patricia Forsythe on behalf of the Opposition was prepared in haste and desperation. I hope the Opposition withdraws the amendment and that members of the Opposition have the decency to hang their heads in shame.
Although the Government does not support the motion, the Government certainly recognises that the apparent proliferation of mobile phone towers is a matter of concern for both the community and the State Government. While the State Government shares the concerns of many communities that have been upset by the fairly untrammelled powers of mobile phone companies and the Federal Government in this respect, the hands of the State Government are tied by the constitutional power of the Federal Government and the legislation that it has enacted. I have had personal experience in the west Ryde and north Ryde areas where essentially people have turned up to install mobile phone towers, much to the grave concern of the surrounding community.
In the remaining time allocated for my speech, I point out that the House should address the industry code that has been developed as it relates to community and government concerns. The code establishes guidelines for the installation of what are known as low impact facilities. The code is known as the Deployment of Radio Communications Infrastructure Code and sets out guidelines, which to my knowledge have not always been followed, such as having written procedures for site selection, implementing proper community consultation procedures, and providing electromagnetic radiation emission reports as required by the Federal Department of Health. The publication also refers to the formation of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. It is a good thing that the code exists, but I would be the first to say that if the industry is to continue to self-regulate according to the code, the industry should make sure that the code is being complied with.
The State Government does not have the legislative power to ban low impact facilities. The Federal Government has quite deliberately limited the States' powers in relation to telecommunications. Certainly the New South Wales Government is prepared to call on the Federal Government to review its legislation in respect of the wide powers and immunities that the Federal Government has granted to private companies—which is why, among other reasons, the Opposition's amendment is totally inadequate. The State Government is also concerned about the location of telecommunications towers near sensitive sites, such as schools and playgrounds. These issues should certainly not be left to private companies alone to determine.
I am convinced that the New South Wales Government is undertaking a number of steps to manage the issue, however it can do so only within the framework established by the Commonwealth Government. The motion moved by Ms Sylvia Hale is unsatisfactory in some respects. I have not gone into the local government issues of concern, and local government also has some powers and rights in this respect. I reiterate that for a number of reasons the State Government and councils are taking action. On the fundamental issue of the Federal Government having the power, this motion is unsatisfactory. [Time expired.]
Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.39 a.m.]: I have listened with interest to the debate and comments from the Opposition and Government. I note that both the Government and the Opposition are aware of the significant community concern about third generation [3G] phone towers and believe that action needs to be taken. Ironically, the Opposition believes that we should focus only on giving advice to the State Government, and the Government believes that a solution can happen only when the Federal Government amends its legislation—pretty convenient! So while it seems we all agree that reform is needed, neither the Government nor the Opposition are prepared to do anything—instead each is happy to simply blame the other. The Greens believe that this serious issue needs a co-operative approach from all levels of Government. We need urgent action from the Federal Government but the State Government also has the power and responsibility to act. We were amazed to see reports earlier this week that the State Government has delayed drawing up lease agreements for telecommunications carriers, who have subsequently saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid rent.
Up to 30 councils in New South Wales have dozens of mobile phone towers on public land. Because of delays by the Government, neither the Government nor the local council has received proper rent for many of those sites. Similar towers on private land generate between $15,000 and $30,000 per tower per year. Because of the sloppy actions of the Government, cash strapped councils have been deprived of hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be used to fund crucial infrastructure and social services. Rest assured, councils would put that money to good use. Over recent years, the State Government has shifted responsibility for many services such as affordable housing, child care and roads maintenance without providing any extra funding to local councils. Both Ms Burnswoods and Ms Forsythe mentioned the importance of striking the balance between the rights of the community and the availability of mobile phone technology.
The Greens agree. Mobile phone technology is an important part of modern life—but that should not give the telecommunications carriers the right to ride roughshod over community interests. Currently mobile phone carriers have rights that override the rights of residents, school communities and even landowners. It is simply unacceptable that phone towers can be installed on buildings against the wishes of residents and the owner. A more even-handed approach to achieve a balance between providing essential communications infrastructure against the rights of communities would be to ensure that carriers abide by standard development consent processes. Communities must be involved in the decision-making process, or one cannot honestly claim that community needs have been fully taken into account. I reiterate the distinction between 2G and 3G technology, which Ms Sylvia Hale has already pointed out.
Some members have confused the technology with 2G and have mistakenly assumed that 3G technology is an essential service. 2G mobile phones are ordinary mobiles, which are, in this day and age, considered essential communications services. In metropolitan areas of the country telecommunications companies have an extensive and relatively mature 2G network. 2G wireless technology, which is an essential communications service, now covers 96 per cent of the Australian population. The Greens recognise the importance of communications services, especially to people living in rural and remote areas. On the other hand, 3G technology is not, at least yet, an essential service—despite the best efforts of the industry to convince us otherwise. 3G is a high-tech toy, enabling people to send live video images. If 3G were to become a widespread or essential service, we need to know that it is safe. Before a massive rollout of towers and base stations occurs, communities need to be reassured that they will not suffer adverse health effects.
Even if 3G technology is one day considered an essential service, that is still not reason enough for mobile carriers to override all rights of residents and communities. We would never allow the RTA to bulldoze our house against our will to build a road, or for cable television providers to put antennas in our front yard against our wishes. By the same token, we should have the right to refuse to have a mobile phone tower on our roofs. Ms Forsythe has regurgitated the industry line that 3G technology is a ubiquitous part of our life. It is not. However hard the industry has tried to convince us otherwise, 3G technology has been very slow to take up, and most people have only bought 3G phones because the carriers were forced to drop call costs to an artificially low level to attract customers. Ms Forsythe said also that it is not for us to determine whether people have the right to access 3G technology. But it is our responsibility to protect the rights of those who choose not to access the technology.
The radiation effect from mobile phones is not like that from microwave ovens. They affect not only the owner of the phone but everyone who has the misfortune to live near a transmission tower. An individual is free to choose whether or not to use a 3G phone, but currently we have no right to refuse to host a tower on or next to our home, workplace or school. While there is no conclusive evidence linking health concerns with mobile phone towers, there is also no conclusive evidence to rule it out. There has been insufficient research into the health effects of mobile phone towers. A cynical explanation for this is that governments and telecommunications companies do not want to find out what the health effects are. A very small contribution from the profits of telecommunication companies, or telcos, could easily be levied to fund independent research, but we have seen very little will from governments to adopt this approach. In the meantime, we are left with no certainty about the health impacts.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency [ARPANSA] has identified mobile phone towers as safe. But the ARPANSA has an overrepresentation of industry stakeholders on its committee. The ARPANSA looks only at thermal effects, not other impacts of electro magnetic radiation on the body. The ARPANSA standards are far less stringent than those in many other countries. Switzerland's regulations are 100 times more stringent than those in Australia. China's are 75 times more stringent. The predecessor to the ARPANSA committee recommended a more stringent standard than the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection [ICNIRP] European standard, which considers only thermal radiation. The Australian Communications Industry Forum [ACIF] industry code of conduct is similarly inadequate.
Contrary to Ms Forsythe's suggestions, breaches of the code are rarely enforced. According to a leaked document, the Australian Consumers Association [ACA] considered that complaints from individuals and communities regarding nine sites were valid. Hutchison was involved with four of those sites, Telstra 3 and Optus 2. Despite the fact that the ACA upheld all nine complaints, only two fines were issued. To clarify a point made by Ms Burnswoods, the ACA will investigate complaints about breaches of the ACIF code, but will not investigate breaches of the Telecommunications Act, which is Federal legislation. Clearly there is a case for being very wary and cautionary about 3G technology. I recommend the motion moved by Ms Sylvia Hale to the House.
Mr IAN COHEN [11.48 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by Ms Sylvia Hale relating to third generation [3G] phone towers. I support also the comments of both Ms Sylvia Hale and Ms Lee Rhiannon. I do not need to go over many of the issues that have been well canvassed. Certainly I and many people with whom I communicate within the community have real concerns about phone towers. At Bondi, near where I stay when in Sydney, it was proposed that a phone tower be erected. Many of the local community were so concerned that they handed out letters and flyers in protest, but that seemed to come to naught eventually. The telecommunications companies, or telcos, had absolute right of way in pushing forward their project, despite real concerns by the local community, families and children, who thought that the proposed tower was far too close.
I would, however, like to refer to an issue that impacted significantly on my home community of Byron Shire. It related to a project involving the construction of a phone tower on a public facility, which was a water tower. The water tower, located in a suburban area named Suffolk Park to the south of Byron Bay, was originally designated to be an exhibition area with a viewing platform and that concept was much supported by the community. Stairs were to be constructed and a platform located at the top of the tower, which was situated on reasonably elevated ground, to permit members of the local community and tourists to climb up and view the surrounding area from that vantage point. Telstra seemed to think that placing a mobile phone tower on the water tower at that site would not in any way detract from the pleasure derived, or potentially derived, by people going up to look at the view. In the end construction of the tower went ahead. A significant amount of equipment and machinery was installed, together with what looks like a shipping container-size component at the base of the water tower, and the idea of constructing a tourist facility there died with the advent of the tower.
Many people living within only metres of the phone tower were most upset because the original siting of the tower was in a much more advantageous position, on the private property of a landowner who changed his mind at a certain point and refused to permit the tower to go ahead. Despite the fact that the wishes of people in other areas had been ignored, for some reason the telecommunications company, or telco, felt it incumbent on the company to take notice of the landowner in question and moved the tower to an area which was not as effective and yet potentially affected not merely a few people a long distance away, but people living within metres of the water tower. I must say I am proud to belong to a politically active community and those people made quite a noise about the issue. Blockades were set up and members of the local community staffed those blockades day and night for quite a while.
Certain assurances were given that the telco would not come in. Media comment was sought and a significant campaign waged in the regional media. I went on site and spoke to members of the community. I lobbied on their behalf and spoke to the media about the issue. Those people were really concerned because they lived in houses literally 20 or so metres away from the phone tower. They had moved to the area in order to be in an environment that provided a healthy lifestyle. There was bush all around. It was a beautiful area. They had poured a significant investment into their homes in the area only to find a mobile phone tower within 20 metres or so of those homes. Many of those families had children. Whether or not there is a reality to the electromagnetic field [EMF] impact or merely their imagination does not matter. Those people suffered a significant loss in the value of their properties and many have found themselves well and truly stuck, unable to sell and facing large mortgages.
Here we have a national carrier purporting to be a public service, bullying its way in. I say very deliberately "bullying its way in" because I had conversations with the Telstra people on site. The regional head of Telstra visited the site and, in a most aggressive manner, basically said, "Bad luck. You've got no say. If necessary we will call in the police." Members of the community, including a local doctor and his family, were most upset about the advent of this phone tower and about a Telstra representative acting in a bullying manner and saying, "You've got no say. You've got no rights." He basically demanded that people get out of his way. There was a stand-off for a period because, fortunately, a local developer refused the telcos access across his development. He said that not only was he aware it was something the community did not want, but he was developing eight or 10 home sites, only to find halfway through the development that a phone tower was to be constructed, which would have a significant impact on the financial viability of his project. He did not allow access over his land.
A blockade was growing. People were putting up barricades and staffing them for a considerable period of time, so that we ended up in a situation where there was going to be a confrontation. Unfortunately, Telstra was unable to negotiate and take on board the suggestions put forward that the tower be moved to another area. It would have been far more effective to negotiate with the landowner who had refused access, or to consider negotiating with a rival telco that had a phone tower already in existence, incidentally on another water tank that was located in a small reserve area. Telstra refused to double up. It refused to see that it would be appropriate to somehow get together with other major operators and negotiate a mutually agreeable settlement in order to be able to put its phone tower on the same site. As far as Telstra was concerned it was not the way that Telstra did business and it just would not work.
We ended up with a situation, unfortunately, whereby just before dawn one morning the telcos arrived with a number of police—it reminded me of the old logging issues that I had often been involved with in the past. They arrived with police and forced back the small contingent of people who had been there during the night. The police opened up the area, threw the blockade aside and allowed Telstra to undertake the building of the phone tower. Many people in the community were crushed at this set of circumstances. We appreciate that telecommunications have a priority but, as Ms Rhiannon said earlier, 3G is not an essential service, as much as they would like to believe it is. We are talking about live video images on mobile phones. We need to resolve the safety issues associated with these towers. It is distressing to think that so many of them are to be constructed in yet another parallel network under the heading of progress.
No doubt, once again the Greens will be seen as modern day Luddites and accused of holding back progress. But it is not the type of progress that is going to institute a network of effective communications systems in New South Wales. It is not the sort of progress that is going to save lives. I admit that I am affected by poor mobile phone communication and that did make a difference, but this motion by Ms Sylvia Hale relates to advances at the frivolous end of the technological revolution. In the future does everyone have to have a mobile phone with a camera? It is a view that, Luddite or not, I think is reflected in the general community. Many people in the general community do not want their rights, their sense of safety and their healthy lifestyle completely overridden by a government instrumentality with a very aggressive attitude because of the legislation that is enacted to support it. What is appreciated and understood is the importance of communications systems in our society.
Many people in country areas, and I am sure many members of The Nationals, are aware that it is vital to have proper telephone connections and an opportunity to use mobile phones to their maximum advantage. Unfortunately, this is a frivolous push by a number of Telco operators who are putting forward services that are not essential in the true sense of the word, thus overriding the wishes of the community. I believe that Ms Hale has moved a reasonable motion.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:33:04 : Update this page