EnergyAustralia Central Coast Transmission Lines

Dr JOHN KAYE [2.40 p.m.]: I move:

1. That this House notes:

(a) the proposal by EnergyAustralia to install approximately 19.6 kilometres of 132kV transmission lines above ground through residential areas from Ourimbah to a new substation under construction in Terrigal, with only a small section at Wamberal being laid underground,

(b) the absence of resolution of ongoing uncertainty relating to serious health impacts of long-term exposure to magnetic fields on residents living near high voltage transmission lines,

(c) recent Australian and international studies suggesting a link between serious disease, particularly in children, and exposure to magnetic fields at levels lower than those to which residents living along the proposed route will be subjected,

(d) the strong community concern about the proposed installation of above-ground 132kV transmission lines, particularly past homes, schools, childcare centres, places of worship and public open space,

(e) the potential threat to wildlife and the environment from the proposed above-ground route running through urban bushland and past Terrigal lagoon and Wamberal lagoon, which is protected under the Japan-Australia migratory Bird Agreement and the China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement, the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and State Environmental Planning Policy 71 Coastal Protection,

(f) the potential to reduce bushfire risk, power supply interruption and motor vehicle accidents that undergrounding of transmission lines provides,

(g) the adverse amenity impacts of towering overhead transmission and distribution structures and lines,

(h) the absence of a detailed and comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement concerning the proposed route and overhead lines and structures, and

(i) that new high voltage transmission lines in residential areas of Sydney have been installed underground.

2. That this House calls on the Minister for Energy to exercise his powers as portfolio Minister under section 20P of the State Owned Corporations Act 1989 to direct EnergyAustralia to:

(a) install the entire length of the Ourimbah to Terrigal 132kV transmission lines underground,

(b) select a route for laying the 132kV transmission lines that does not impact on residents or the sensitive environmental areas of Wamberal and Terrigal lagoons, and

(c) ensure that all future transmission lines linked to the substation in Terrigal are placed underground.

On 27 March construction began on a Central Coast powerline. Central Coast residents feel deeply betrayed by a process that did not adequately reflect their concerns. They feel betrayed by a Government that did not respect their concerns about the impact of magnetic fields, the impact on the amenity of the environment and the environmental impact on bird life resulting from these towers. When Central Coast residents came home from work and saw the poles on Tumbi Road, Wamberal, it became clear that the Iemma Government had allowed EnergyAustralia to push ahead with an almost entirely overhead line solution to Central Coast power needs. The decision came just two weeks after the decision to underground an additional 750 metres of line past Wamberal primary school. The decision to underground that small section of 750 metres was greatly welcomed by the parents, students and teachers of that school. However, it is tantamount to an admission of guilt by EnergyAustralia that it has valid concerns about magnetic fields from overhead powerlines and the impact on the physiology and bodies of young children, who are known to be extremely vulnerable to the effects of 50-hertz and 60-hertz magnetic fields.

We cannot say that magnetic fields cause cancer or other life-threatening illnesses. That is not the issue we are debating. We can say that the epidemiological evidence is unclear. The epidemiological evidence continues to throw up compounding data that leaves people wondering about the precise impact of magnetic fields, particularly on children. Studies have shown increases in childhood leukaemia and other forms of cancer. Equally, other studies have not shown statistically significant levels of cancer and other forms of disease resulting from exposure to magnetic fields. This Chamber and the Government must take account of the risks associated with the evidence on magnetic fields. The strong evidence is that we do not know. In cases where we do not know, we must exercise the precautionary principle—that is, if a risk can be avoided, even when there is no evidence to show that the risk is a certainty, use an alternative. In this case, there is a clear alternative.

In Sydney 30 per cent of EnergyAustralia's 132- kilovolt assets are underground. On the Central Coast none of the 132- kilovolt system is underground. We are concerned about the way in which EnergyAustralia undergrounds powerlines. It is time that the residents of the Central Coast received the same standard of treatment that is provided to the residents of Sydney. It is time that the concerns of Central Coast citizens were taken seriously. Studies commencing back in the 1980s, including the work of Sir Harry Gibbs, urged governments and energy authorities, such as EnergyAustralia, to seriously consider the impact of magnetic field exposure on health and to take actions that will reduce exposure to magnetic fields. The Government is failing in its duty to young people by not insisting that EnergyAustralia practice prudent avoidance. Central Coast residents have been betrayed by their Minister and the Government. Minister Della Bosca has failed to give them the protection that is enjoyed by the residents of Sydney and Newcastle, where a large proportion of high-voltage lines are now underground.

The Greens also have grave concerns for the Central Coast bird life. The Wamberal and Terrigal lagoons are covered by JAMBA and CAMBA—the Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement and the China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement. The agreements are an understanding between Australia, Japan and China in relation to the hosting of migratory bird populations. Those bird populations will be impacted by the large 132,000-volt powerlines. If for no other reason, the powerline should be undergrounded to avoid compromising the integrity of those bird communities. The process associated with the planning of this line has been woefully inadequate. EnergyAustralia has completely disregarded those two international migratory bird treaties by placing the line right on the edge of both Terrigal and Wamberal lagoons. There is no evidence in the environmental impact planning that the poles and wires will not have a dramatically adverse impact on the migratory birds. I call on the Minister for Energy to step in and do something. According to section 20P of the State Owned Corporations Act, the Minister has the power to direct EnergyAustralia to underground these lines. He at least has the capacity to direct EnergyAustralia to hold off on the construction of the lines until further consultation with the community and underground alternatives have been explored.

EnergyAustralia consultations go like this: "This is what we are going to do. What do you think of that? Thank you very much, we will do it." In the twenty-first century that is simply not good enough. The consultation needs to genuinely reflect the desires, wishes and concerns of the residents of the Central Coast. That has not happened in this case. In this case EnergyAustralia has ridden roughshod over the residents. The residents have written hundreds of letters, every single one of which has been ignored. They have produced cogent arguments for undergrounding the powerline and for rerouting it away from the banks of Wamberal and Terrigal lagoons. They have been entirely ignored and dismissed by EnergyAustralia, which pushed ahead except for one section of 750 metres when it simply could not ignore the exposure of young children to magnetic fields. To do that is to make a mockery of the idea of consultation.

It is important that this Parliament takes seriously the concerns of the residents of the Central Coast. I particularly want to draw to the attention of the House the impact that this powerline, if it goes ahead in its current construction, will have on the Lollipops Childcare Centre in Wamberal. A 132,000-volt transmission line along Tumbi Road will pass within six metres of the playground where young children—infants—will be playing. EnergyAustralia says that the line will be 18 to 20 metres from the building, and that is so.

[Interruption]

The Minister has asked me where I got my facts. The Greens do a strange thing: they listen to the community. If the Minister is prepared to refer to the community of the Central Coast as liars—

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: No, you are.

Dr JOHN KAYE: No, I am telling the Minister what the community is telling us. If the Minister says what I say is a lie then he is saying that the community is lying. So be it. Let us take that back to the community and see what the community says. EnergyAustralia wrote to Lollipops Childcare Centre in Wamberal and said that its powerline will be 18 to 20 metres from the building, and that is so. But, in effect, that is not the issue here; it is the playground, which is as much a concern to the childcare centre as the building itself. It is very clear that the children will be playing within five or six metres of that line. It is totally inappropriate in the twenty-first century to take a risk with our infants in that way. If we are to show any respect whatsoever to the Central Coast and to the residents of Wamberal and Terrigal, then it is essential that we ask the Minister to instruct EnergyAustralia to, at the very minimum, put this development on hold, but, preferably, to stop this development and go back and consult with the community.

I am aware that this is a complex issue and that many members will want to develop their arguments and assess the data. I believe the most appropriate thing to do is to adjourn consideration of the matter until the next sitting day. Therefore, I move:

That this debate be adjourned until the next sitting day.

Question—That the motion be adjourned until the next sitting day—put.

The House divided.


Question resolved in the negative.

Motion for adjournment of debate negatived.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I moved to adjourn the debate because I understood that a number of members wanted more time to think about this matter. That in no way detracts from the urgency of this motion. If members were to visit the Central Coast they would note the urgency in the voices and eyes of the people of that area. Recent international studies have shown an increase in the incidence of childhood leukaemia when children are born or live near high-voltage overhead powerlines. While epidemiological studies are yet to clearly identify the causal links, the risk is serious enough to lead even the World Health Organisation to suggest precautionary measures aimed at reducing exposure to low-frequency electric and magnetic fields.

Another concern is the long-term costs associated with transmission lines. In the short term, cost savings can be made by installing overhead powerlines. However, in the long term significant savings can be achieved by undergrounding lines. Only a very short-term view of electricity distribution network planning would lead one to believe that lines should be above ground. Substantial savings can be made as a result of a reduction in the incidence of motor vehicle accidents. That is probably the biggest single saving to be made. A study entitled "Putting Cables Underground—A report of the review of the options for placing facilities underground" carried out under clause 49 of schedule 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 estimated that the actual benefit in dollars per kilometre of line from reduced motor vehicle accidents was between $1,358 and $2,793. That is a substantial ongoing benefit each year as a result of undergrounding powerlines.

Maintenance costs would also plummet by anything up to $1,531 per kilometre of line per year. Tree trimming costs would almost entirely disappear, offering a saving of up to $1,220 per kilometre per year. Reduced transmission costs because of reduced losses in active and reactive power would amount to $292 a year. That means the total measurable benefits of undergrounding powerlines could be as much as $5,736 per kilometre per year. Those are substantial savings that over a period of years would repay the additional capital costs associated with putting lines underground.

No doubt the Minister will tell us that that is too expensive and that the State of New South Wales cannot afford to underground powerlines. The response to that must be a very firm, "No, you are wrong, Minister." If the Government were to ask what the cost would be over the next 20 years, it would find that undergrounding wins out in terms of the reduced incidence of motor vehicle accidents and maintenance, tree trimming and transmission costs.
However, what is not measured and what is most significant is the potential health benefits, which could be enormous. How does one put a value on the life of a young person with childhood leukaemia? How does one put a value on a foreshortened life? Surely there is nothing in our society that should stand between us and protecting young people. Nothing should cause us to say that it is too expensive to reroute a powerline away from a child-care centre, from residences and schools, and from where kids play and people live. It is urgent that the House debate this matter and that members consider how to ensure that in future the people of the Central Coast do not look back and say we were derelict in our duty to protect them. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [3.05 p.m.]: I will make a few comments about this motion and reiterate the reason the Opposition believes that this issue should be debated urgently. I acknowledge that the Hon. Dr John Kaye moved the adjournment to give members—particularly a number of cross-bench members—the opportunity to seek advice, not only from government advisers but also from members of the community who see this debate as a last-ditch attempt to resolve an issue that should have been resolved in 2006-07.

Members might not know that the Government face that dealt with the Central Coast community on this issue was not the Hon. Ian Macdonald or even the Hon. John Della Bosca—the Minister for the Central Coast—it was the Hon. Joe Tripodi. I suspect that he did not present to the Parliament and his parliamentary colleagues the realistic concerns that were raised about the potential risks of the proposed installation.

I must give credit to the member for Terrigal, Mr Chris Hartcher, for his representation of the Central Coast on this issue in the New South Wales Parliament. As I said when speaking on the motion to adjourn the debate, I do not know of any issue in the 27 years that I have lived on the Central Coast that has so clearly focused the minds of local residents. It is not until one drives along Tumbi Road that one understands the seriousness of the situation. Most visitors to the Central Coast travel along the Pacific Highway—or as the Government now calls it, the "central coast highway"—or along The Entrance Road. Such a route would not suggest any reason for concern. It is not until one travels along Tumbi Road and talks to the parents of children at Tumbi High School or Wamberal Public School and the residents along the road and on the side streets and feed off—

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: And the two preschool centres.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes is very familiar with this area. I look forward to his contribution to this debate. Concerns have also been raised about potential environmental impacts given the proximity to the Terrigal and Wamberal lagoons. As the Hon. Dr John Kaye spelt out in the motion, there will be an impact on migratory birds that nest from time to time in the area. This Government has not been prepared to sit down with the local residents to establish an alternative solution.

The final paragraph of the motion refers to the Ourimbah to Terrigal 132-kilovolt transmission lines and recognises the sensitivity of the Wamberal and Terrigal lagoons. We are debating the potential risks to students at schools located directly under or in incredibly close proximity to the proposed lines and the potential impact on the sensitive environment of the Wamberal and Terrigal lagoons—not only for birds but also for the tourist industry—and the people living along Tumbi Road at Wamberal and up to the Tumbi Umbi end of Tumbi Road. All those people are concerned about this issue and have been approaching the Opposition about it for some time. We gave them a commitment prior to the last State election that we would put these power lines underground. We felt this was a special case deserving of a commitment by government that what was being proposed in relation to the installation of these power lines was unsuitable. For that reason, the Opposition gave that commitment prior to the last State election.

The sad reality is, as Dr John Kaye alluded to in his speech, the installation of the infrastructure to carry these wires has commenced. So this is a last-ditch attempt by a number of members of this Chamber to call upon the Government to listen to the concerns of the residents of this area of the Central Coast, and to listen to the pleas that have been made by members of Parliament, such as the Hon. Chris Hartcher, who represents both his Terrigal electorate and the constituency of The Entrance. It is sad that the current member for The Entrance, Mr Grant McBride, has not uttered a word in relation to this issue. It is a shame that we do not see two members of Parliament, from opposite sides, standing side by side supporting the Central Coast. On this occasion we hear but one voice—of the member for Terrigal, Chris Hartcher—calling on the Government to bring a halt to this program.

In 12 months it will be over. The wires will be in place. Installation to the substation at Terrigal will be completed or most certainly well underway. I do not believe it is something that can be revisited. I am not the shadow Minister responsible for this portfolio. I am merely a Central Coast resident who has listened to the concerns of the constituents there and the fears they have about the power line installation program. This is a last-ditch attempt by everyone concerned to ask the Government to bring this program to a halt because of the unique nature of the affected area and to give the Central Coast an opportunity to examine other options such as the one Dr John Kaye has proposed in his motion.

I cannot put it any stronger. This motion merely echoes the concerned voices of Central Coast residents. I do not believe the Government has handled the matter well. It is sad that it has not spent the time with these residents that it should have. The Government's treatment of Central Coast residents, and its lack of preparedness to spend time with them to find an alternative solution, particularly in those more heavily urbanised areas along Tumbi Road and around Wamberal Lagoon, will leave a lasting legacy. The Government has simply pushed ahead with its plans and is not prepared to consider the residents of a specific area of the Central Coast who have clearly defined concerns that do not appear to resonate with the Government.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [3.13 p.m.]: This motion has been characterised by a lot of misinformation, particularly by Dr John Kaye in his contribution. I wish to take the opportunity to correct some of his clearly inaccurate statements. Planning for the line commenced more than two years ago. More than 20 consultative meetings have taken place and more than 500 households were written to directly by EnergyAustralia. The project is needed to boost power supplies to more than 10,000 homes and businesses on the Central Coast, and to delay it further would only disadvantage those businesses and homes indefinitely.

A number of significant changes have been made to the project in response to submissions received through this extensive planning stage. To suggest there was no proper planning in relation to the matter is completely erroneous. Most notably, an extra $12 million will be invested to put lines underground for four kilometres of the route. This means that the lines will be underground past Wamberal Lagoon and Wamberal Public School. EnergyAustralia has followed all guidelines in relation to the prudent avoidance of electric and magnetic fields when designing the project. Work on the line has already commenced by EnergyAustralia and will be continuing this week.

Underground lines cost between five and 10 times as much as aboveground power lines. The project has already cost $50 million; the undergrounding will be additional. The total cost must be paid for by consumers—the higher the cost, the higher the electricity charges. Whether overhead or underground, the electric and magnetic fields are well within current guidelines. Connell Wagner's modelling showed that at the property boundaries on Tumbi Road the existing magnetic field levels would be elevated by only a further two to three milliGauss over the existing three to four milliGauss. The draft Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency standard is 1,000 milliGauss for the general public.

Let me put this in context. Televisions and electric fans produce up to two milliGauss. Computers produce up to 20 milliGauss—and we know the Greens sit in front of their computers half the day. Electric stoves produce up to 30 milliGauss and refrigerators produce up to five milliGauss. To suggest that a heavy magnetic field is associated with these lines is quite erroneous. Secondly, the line will be 58 metres from the nearest school building at Wamberal and 94 metres from the nearest school building at Tumbi Umbi campus.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Only 58 metres?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Yes. You have to remember that the lines could be next door but it is what is emitted from the power lines that counts. The studies that have been done show a magnetic field level in the order of three to four milliGauss. According to bethe Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency standard, 1,000 milliGauss is appropriate from the—

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Have you ever had it 58 metres from a building?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: There have been 132kV powerlines passing over my property in the Southern Highlands for a number of years and it did not bother me at all. The distance from these powerlines is well within acceptable limits. The magnetic field is far less than from a computer that might be installed in a children's room, and it is even less than that from an electric stove. Let us get this debate into perspective.

The Central Coast is one of the fastest-growing areas of New South Wales. Residential and light industrial development is leading to an increase in demand for power. Demand for electricity on the Central Coast is growing at about 3.5 per cent per year, well above the average level of growth across the rest of EnergyAustralia's electricity network. To meet the challenges of this growing demand for power, EnergyAustralia is planning a large program of works to secure the future supply of electricity to people on the Central Coast. I am sure the Opposition wants that security. I am sure all members of the House want that security for the residents of the Central Coast. The total expenditure anticipated over the next five years to secure power to the Central Coast is $405 million—an $85 million increase compared to two years ago.

A number of other capital works projects are envisaged within this plan. They include an upgrade of the feeders to Vales Point zone substation; a capacity increase at the Long Jetty zone substation; further upgrades to the Umina and Woy Woy zone substation; and the conversion of a new zone substation at Berkeley Vale. EnergyAustralia's plans to strengthen its electricity network will deliver a more reliable supply and cater for the growing demand for power. Boosting supply around the Wamberal and Terrigal areas is a key part of these plans. This project includes the construction of a new fully enclosed zone substation at Wamberal and power lines to connect the substation to a major supply point at Ourimbah.

EnergyAustralia's plans to strengthen its electricity network will deliver a more reliable supply and cater for the growing demand for power. Plans to boost supply around the Wamberal and Terrigal areas are a key part of these plans. This project includes the construction of a new fully enclosed zone substation at Wamberal and powerline to connect the substation to a major supply chain in Ourimbah. EnergyAustralia is planning to connect the two substations by a 17 kilometre, 132,000-volt powerline. The project will comprise a combination of above and below ground powerlines. About four kilometres of the line will be installed underground at five to ten times the cost of constructing above ground powerlines over the same distance. At sensitive spots the lines will be placed underground.

The project is estimated to cost around $50 million plus the additional costs of putting the line underground. The 10,000 households are in the area of Wamberal, Terrigal, Matcham, Picketts Valley, Avoca, Holgate, Erina and Erina Heights. The proposal by EnergyAustralia to install a powerline from Ourimbah to Wamberal requires assessment under part 5 of the New South Wales Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Under the Act, EnergyAustralia, as a public authority, is the nominated determining authority.

EnergyAustralia is required to carefully examine and take into account to the fullest extent possible all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment. EnergyAustralia is required to examine potential impacts on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, or critical habitat listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and the Fisheries Management Act 1994. It must also determine if there is likely to be significant impact on wetlands listed under State environmental planning policy No. 14, coastal wetlands, and to consider State environmental planning policy No. 71, coastal protection.

EnergyAustralia is also required to determine whether the proposal is likely to have a significant impact on listed migratory species, including those listed under the bilateral agreements with Japan and China. The Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 requires the Commonwealth's approval for an action that will, or is likely to, have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance or on Commonwealth land. From the outset of this project EnergyAustralia has engaged the local community on its plans for the upgrade.

I have dealt with concerns about the levels of magnetic fields. The project is well within the national limits and the New South Wales network operators practice of prudent avoidance in designing, building and operating electricity assets—which means limiting electric and magnetic fields [EMF] levels without taking extreme design steps. Various worldwide studies have been carried out for over 30 years without finding a causal mechanism for possible health effects. The New South Wales electricity supply industry currently operates within the 1989 National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines for these fields.

The Australian Radiation Protection inand Nuclear Safety Agency has proposed a new electric and magnetic fields standard. The Energy Networks Association is negotiating on behalf of the electricity industry to ensure the standard is appropriate. EnergyAustralia has undertaken extensive consultation with communities, principals, parents and citizens associations and the Department of Education and Training on electric and magnetic fields from the planned upgrade. Independent experts were engaged to model and assess the level of electric and magnetic fields that would be emitted at various locations within the schools. The powerline along Tumbi Road has been planned to minimise impacts for the local community. The line will be 58 metres from the nearest school building at Wamberal Public School and 94 metres from the nearest school building at Tumbi Umbi campus.

This means that electric and magnetic fields levels in either school building will not change as a result of the line and levels at the school boundaries will be less than 1 per cent of the draft national standards for electric and magnetic fields. EnergyAustralia has engaged the local community on this important project for two years and through this process it has received constructive feedback that it is using to make changes to help it overcome some very challenging technical issues. For example, EnergyAustralia worked with residents on the northern end of Tumbi Road to halve the number of poles and reduce the number of wires in Bohringer Lane and Hansens Road. EnergyAustralia has also finetuned line design and pole placement along Tumbi Road to reduce electric and magnetic fields levels and to minimise visual impacts.

EnergyAustralia is now completing a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the review of environmental factors and has received comments and submissions, including detailed responses to approximately 340 submissions. This is in addition to the many community submissions already addressed following the announcement on 10 July last year of a preferred route. This is an extremely important project for communities in the region.

Having said that, I advise that environmental matters were considered in detail, including any impact on bird life. EnergyAustralia has respected all environmental legislation protecting Wamberal and Terrigal lagoons. It has not disregarded international migratory bird treaties by placing the line on the edge. In these areas the line will be placed underground, and that should please Dr Kaye. In fact, as a result some of his comments have been destroyed. The issues have been canvassed in great detail over the past two years and, of the alternatives investigated as part of the consultation process, the final and preferred route chosen represents the option with the least environmental impact on the area.

Also, it should be remembered that power supplies must be secured for the region. The cost of putting put the entire 17-kilometres powerline underground would be astronomical. This would increase the $50 million plus $12 million to several hundred million, and that is clearly impractical. They only people who would be paying out in that event would be EnergyAustralia customers. Nevertheless, EnergyAustralia will ensure that in key areas the line will be placed underground. The motion is misguided. It does not take into account wide consultation between EnergyAustralia and the community about the environment, the bird life and wildlife, and, where necessary, amendments have been made to the proposal to ensure minimum environmental impact.

Some research indicates that there may be a problem with electric and magnetic fields, but all the peer reviews, the research of scientists associated with EnergyAustralia that I have read, and the environmental assessment models show that the electric and magnetic fields levels are well below the levels that would impact on humans. In fact, the level—and this would be the maximum amount for the area—is less than 1 per cent of the national guidelines. The Greens are again indulging in infantile popularism and endeavouring to whip up antagonism with respect to this necessary proposal. These powerlines are required to ensure security of supply for the residents of the Central Coast.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [3.28 p.m.]: On behalf of the Shooters Party I wish to address some matters in this debate. Whilst sometimes we have a bit of fun with the science that the Greens put forward—I am often heard calling it voodoo science—I acknowledge that Dr John Kaye is somewhat of an expert in this field and that some of his concerns are probably valid. However, I do not believe that in this debate he has demonstrated that those concerns can be supported by sufficient evidence that suggests that such installations—that is, above-ground, high voltage transmission lines—are the cause of public health problems. There is evidence for and against in that regard. Of course, the concerns of residents are legitimate because they relate to public health as well as property values—people's amenity and ambiance.

I would feel for them, having 132 kilovolts powerlines whacked up outside their place. The point is that we live in a growing State with growing communities. The Government is tasked with providing the facilities of power and water to our communities. Infrastructure requirements such as this will result in some residents in some areas—even rural property owners—having their amenities affected. I remind members of the raging debates on wind and nuclear power.

With regard to any effect on wildlife, I note that the energy authority has had a fairly well-regarded group of consultants, Connell Wagner, undertake its environmental impact statement and engineering work. I draw a parallel between this work and that done by Gutteridge Haskin and Davies on the Hilltop shooting complex. We will always have community advocates claiming that their science is better than that of companies engaged by government authorities. One would have to say that there are only a certain number of companies around capable of doing the research, and they are all well regarded. It would be disingenuous for anyone to try to disrespect such research by saying that it is not valid.

Dr John Kaye has a great deal of expertise on this subject, but overall I think this issue would be better be addressed if we got off our backsides in New South Wales and at the Federal level to undertake proper long-term research. It is far too late to be debating issues such as public health on a contract that has already been let and in relation to which an extensive environmental impact statement and technical inquiries have taken place. This should have happened two years ago, 10 years ago, or even 20 years ago. My wife and I live not too far from 330 kilovolts powerlines. Dr John Kaye assures me that the magnetic field from 330 kilovolts powerlines is lower than that emitted from 132 kilovolts powerlines—

Dr JOHN KAYE: It may not be higher.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: I apologise. I correct that: It may not be higher. My wife does not like them either. In fact we would rather not live underneath them, but that is not because I believe that there is science to prove that my grandchildren will get zapped or have medical problems. I have not had any such science presented to me. If I did have conclusive science presented to me in that regard, I would be the first to condemn the Government for ignoring it.

The balance of arguments presented here this afternoon suggests that the project has started, the costs are committed, and the Government has made some attempt to address the concerns of the residents—certainly they have had public consultations. No matter where you live, sooner or later you are going to have your amenities altered or challenged by infrastructure or something else that happens in your neighbourhood, whether it is the construction of a Muslim school, the installation of 132- kilovolts powerlines, or the construction of a rifle range, waterline or dam. Everyone will be affected sooner or later. We all have to live in the State, and provided the Government does its homework and the consultants do their work diligently, we can feel that we have probably done the best job we can do. The Shooters Party does not support Dr John Kaye's urgency motion.

Mr IAN COHEN [3.33 p.m.]: I support Dr John Kaye's motion. I have listened with interest to what the Minister said in response. Obviously he has many of the facts at his fingertips. I have a number of questions for the Minister. Why were the powerlines not placed undergrounded near the childcare centre? At what point does the authority consider a safety issue exists that warrants four kilometres of powerline being placed underground? There must be a point to the impact of these lines. I do not have the science in front of me, but I have anecdotal evidence of people who have lived under medium-grade powerlines and how that has affected them. A very good friend of mine who lived under such a powerline was affected, although one cannot prove that that was necessarily the cause of her significant pituitary gland cancer and the other complications. There is other very persuasive anecdotal evidence in this regard.

I had some involvement with the NorthPower DirectLink project, about which there was public concern. That line was in many cases built at ground level. I understood it to be a link feeding power back and forth between Queensland and New South Wales, although I could be wrong on that point. Real concern was expressed when the line was routed past houses on the main entrance road to the Mullumbimby township. Some friends of mine were very upset about that even though the link was placed underground at that point.

I note that the member who spoke on behalf of the Shooters Party said that people in New South Wales are impacted by the construction of rifle ranges, dams, et cetera. That may be the case from his perspective. But, as Dr John Kaye said, the substantial initial cost of placing lines underground is well and truly redeemed over the years with funds not being expended on onerous maintenance regimes to clear trees and funds not being allocated for compensation in the event of damage caused by storms and branches falling on powerlines causing damage to people's properties. One of my neighbours was almost killed when he was hit on the head by a fallen power line when he went out one night to investigate sparking at the front of his house. These things do happen. I do not think that anyone here would say that there should not be an adequate supply of power to the Central Coast. Arguments suggesting that somehow or other we have to put the power through at any cost costs are not relevant to this debate. But we do have, albeit in a limited way, solutions. One of the big issues in this particular case is that we have children in close proximity to the powerlines—

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: Thee are three childcare centres in the vicinity.

Mr IAN COHEN: I thank the Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes for that information. I understand that the lines will be placed underground near the schools but not near some of the childcare centres. Surely our major electricity suppliers should take note of that and, at the very least, should place the wires underground so that electricity can be delivered in a safe manner. There are many regions throughout country areas—I know of some on the North Coast—where powerlines should be placed underground. Our utilities seem to be maintaining a culture of overhead wires when there is a solution that is both environmentally and socially more benign in terms of protecting children at childcare centres. This motion is worthy of debate and is not a waste of the time of the House. I implore all members to consider the precautionary principle when deciding how to vote on this motion. I have concerns about the effects of electromagnetic radiation on those who live their entire lives under high-voltage powerlines.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.39 p.m.], in reply: I thank the House for giving consideration to this important matter. Members have aired their views and the Minister's views are on record. This important debate will continue on the Central Coast. I want to put four points in reply. I thank members for their contributions. I acknowledge the contribution of the Hon. Robert Brown, to which I will respond, and that of my colleague Mr Ian Cohen, who has been involved in this issue for some time. The first point I want to make is that the Greens do not argue against augmentation of supply capacity on the Central Coast. The Minister tried to say that the motion opposed augmenting the capacity of the Central Coast powerline and painted the Greens into a position where we would be responsible for blackouts on the Central Coast. That is not the intent of the motion, nor the intent of our actions or words on this issue. However, we believe that the Government should always pursue energy efficiency options. Whenever it looks at augmenting the capacity of distribution and transmission issues, the first point of call should always be augmenting supply capacity.

With regard to exposure to magnetic fields, the Minister has confused two totally separate issues. He has confused ongoing background exposure to magnetic fields, 24 hours a day seven days a week, with intermittent exposure. They have very different biological characteristics. There is no doubt that people could get far more exposure from sitting in front of a domestic appliance, such as, a stove, computer, toaster or refrigerator. All of these appliances emit large intensity magnetic fields. But most people do not spend 24 hours a day seven days a week standing in bodily contact with their refrigerators, wrapped around their toasters, or sitting with their heads next to their computers. Those who do should consider amending their personal habits because they may be inflicting significant damage on themselves. Where a residence or a school is in close proximity to an overhead powerline, doubling the background magnetic radiation is an unsafe policy decision. Although it is increasing from a relatively low level, the new level is sufficiently high to raise alarm.

I acknowledge that there is no confirmatory evidence that magnetic fields at the intensity of 50 hertz cause health impacts. I made that very clear in my speech to establish the urgency of this matter and in debate on the substantive motion. The Greens do not say that is the case. We do say that the absence of evidence that it is safe and the confounding evidence that comes out time and again in literature on low intensity 50 hertz and 60 hertz magnetic field exposure are sufficient to drive a policy of prudent avoidance. Prudent avoidance means to avoid where there is an alternative. In this particular case there is an alternative: reroute and underground the line.

I urge the House to consider the impact on children. It is known from other biological irritants that children in their developmental phases are more sensitive to radiation and chemicals. In this case there is no hard and fast evidence that exposing children will result in an increase in childhood leukaemia. But there is enough evidence to raise the alarm. Would we want to expose our children to that level of risk? That is the issue here. Is it all right to expose children, the future of our State, to this level of risk because we do not have the evidence? The same situation applied to the use of tobacco in the 1920s, at which time there was no evidence of health risks associated with cigarettes. Some studies said that cigarettes were dangerous, whereas other studies, mostly those done by tobacco companies, said that cigarettes were not dangerous.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Mobile phones?

Dr JOHN KAYE: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile referred to mobile phones. That is another issue. The difference between mobile phones and powerlines is that people make a decision to talk on their mobile phones. They do not make a decision to live under a powerline that is erected outside their houses. They do not make a decision to expose their children to magnetic field radiation when a line is run close to a childcare centre or a secondary school. As I say, the scientific evidence is not available. But the absence of scientific evidence should drive a policy of taking an available alternative. Particularly as it relates to children, the Government should front up with the money and take steps to make our children as safe as possible.

In relation to Wamberal lagoon the first issue I raise is bird strike on the structures. The overhead line structures pass in close proximity to Wamberal lagoon, close enough to raise concerns. The second issue relates to excavation for the underground line around the banks of Wamberal lagoon. The Greens are concerned—and local residents have continually echoed our concerns—that the excavation will stir up acid sulphate soils and impact on the water quality in the lagoons. The protection of the lagoon has not been adequately exercised in the environmental assessment process. The assessment does not refer to the impact of the excavation. That is why the motion specifically calls on the Minister to order EnergyAustralia to underground the line and to reroute the line so that it is moved away from areas of environmental sensitivity.

The last issue I wish to address is the changes that were made to the powerline route and the nature of the structure, whether above or underground, as a result of the so-called consultations. Changes were made. The Minister is probably aware that on radio I welcomed one of the changes. I believed it was important to protect Wamberal Public School by undergrounding the line. But the Greens say that the admission by EnergyAustralia that it was inappropriate to run high voltage distribution lines past a public school is cause for alarm. Where the line came into close proximity to a centre where children would be present for a significant proportion of their day EnergyAustralia put the line underground. As my colleague Mr Ian Cohen pointed out, that means the line should have been undergrounded or rerouted further away from the playground of the childcare centre. EnergyAustralia made changes only in relation to the most egregious impacts, but left open many other problems. Many other sensitive spots, as the Minister referred to them, will be exposed to the visual impact and health risk impact of overhead high voltage distribution lines.

Once again, I thank the House for considering the motion. Although I do not speak for the residents of the Central Coast, I know that they would want every member of the House to ask themselves the following questions: If it affected you, your children or grandchildren, would you want to take the risk? Do you want to be in a position in 30 years where one of your children or grandchildren contracts a rare form of leukaemia, or evidence shows that the confounding studies were wrong? Do you want to gamble with the future of our children, or do you want to spend a bit more money now to protect the future of our young people, the Central Coast and our State?

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.