CHAPTER 7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
| Telecommunications infrastructure — mobile phone
towers and heavy overhead cables — have spread rapidly across
densely populated urban areas since 1994. Under exemptions granted
to carriers, State, Territory and local governments have limited
powers to curb the activities of carriers anxious to grab market
share at the expense of the environment. Consumers have voiced their
concerns about the cost implications of unnecessary infrastructure
duplication. Residents have raised concerns about the health implications
of electromagnetic radiation and the visual impacts of aerial cabling
and mobile telephone towers. The Committee is concerned that appropriate
environment and planning regulations are liable to be traded off
by the Government in pursuit of a higher sale price for Telstra.
|
7.1 One of the main findings of the inquiry was the widespread adverse
reaction to mobile telephone towers and aerial cabling demonstrated
by the Australian community. Some of the central issues brought to light
in this inquiry concerned carriers' exemptions, the draft Telecommunications
National Code, visual pollution, the excessive costs of the duplication
of infrastructure, and potential impacts on the community's health.
In the Committee's view, all these issues warrant the Government's urgent
attention.
7.2 Major submissions were received from local government associations,
councils, city corporations, conservation groups, and residents' associations.
Sixty-six submissions addressed environmental issues in detail and, without
exception, all of these submissions opposed aerial cabling and the degradation
of the environment. High levels of concern were expressed, particularly
in Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland. A list of
submissions from these groups is shown in Appendix 9. In addition to written
submissions, some witnesses have provided photographs of towers and cabling
in urban landscapes for the Committee's consideration. [1]
7.3 Telstra is currently the only carrier subject to Commonwealth environmental
protection legislation, namely the Environmental Assessment (Impact
of Proposals) Act 1974, the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975,
and the Endangered Species Protection Act 1995. The other carriers (currently
Optus and Vodafone), are not bound by such legislation because these
Acts only bind Commonwealth ministers and instrumentalities.
7.4 The Committee is aware that the Government's long-term plan is to
fully privatise Telstra as was recently confirmed by the Minister. [2]
If the Commonwealth moves into the position of becoming a minority shareholder
in Telstra, then Telstra's obligations under Commonwealth environmental
protection legislation will cease. This would place Australia's second-largest
company beyond Commonwealth, State and Territory environment legislation.
7.5 All carriers (currently Telstra, Optus and Vodafone) are exempt
from the operation of State, Territory and local government environment
and planning laws when erecting, installing and maintaining telecommunications
facilities.
7.6 These exemptions are provided for in Part 7 of the Telecommunications
Act which gives carriers special powers, immunities and land access
rights. The intention was to facilitate the rapid and efficient rollout
of telecommunications networks, particularly during the initial period
of facilities-based competition from 1991-1997:
... because there is only a limited initial period for competition
to be established, it was not considered appropriate to make carriers
subject to normal State and Territory planning and environment laws.
This is particularly so in the light of the considerable variation.
Because such networks are rolled out on a national basis, and in requirements
within and between States, and the fact that broadly similar powers
and immunities were previously enjoyed by Telecom and its predecessor
the Postmaster General's Department. [3]
7.7 The Telecommunications (Exempt Activities) Regulations do not,
however, apply without reservation. Carriers do not have total freedom
to install and maintain telecommunication facilities as they please.
The legislative scheme includes a Telecommunications National Code which
describes the process by which carriers should install, maintain and
operate their networks and facilities.
7.8 The law governing the Telecommunications National Code is currently
contained in sections 117-119 of the Telecommunications Act 1991. The
Act states that the Minister must determine a National Code which does
one or more of the following:
(a) provides for technical, design, safety, environmental or other
standards with which carriers must comply in connection with their
exempt activities; or
(b) imposes requirements or prohibitions on carriers in relation
to:
(i) the development or use of land, or the erection, maintenance
or use of buildings or other structures, in connection with the
carriers' exempt activities; or
(ii) the effect of the carriers' exempt activities on the environment;
or
(iii) any other matter in connection with the carriers' exempt
activities;
(c) requires carriers, before engaging in exempt activities, to consult
with officers and authorities of States and Territories about the
effect of the exempt activities on matters of a kind in relation to
which those officers and authorities perform functions or exercise
powers.
7.9 The Code does not, however, oblige carriers to take into account
any of the views on requirements of local government or affected residents.
The Code is determined by the Government, through the Minister, and
is disallowable by both Houses of Parliament. Areas covered include
design, safety and environmental standards, requirements or prohibitions
on development or use of land or structures, and consultation with state
and territory authorities.
7.10 Although unsuccessful, the aim of the Code has been to moderate
national telecommunications development with sensitivity to local requirements.
7.11 Exemptions under the Telecommunications Act have created confusion
and anger, particularly in urban communities. One Federal MP, concerned
about mobile phone towers in his own electorate of Warringah, described
towers `sprouting like loathsome toadstools all over the suburbs of
Australia'. He, like others, raised objections to:
the Australian people, in particular, the people in my electorate,
being used as guinea pigs in this Government's crazy experiment with
open slather in telecommunications. [4]
7.12 Opposition to the exemptions continues to grow. At hearings in
Melbourne and Adelaide, vocal demonstrations against aerial cabling
took place outside State Parliament Houses. The Local Government Association
of South Australia commented upon the solidarity of local government
opposition to carriers' exemptions:
There are few issues in local government over the last few years
which have caused such widespread community concern. Local government
across Australia has worked collaboratively to understand the issues
and respond on behalf of our communities across the nation. [5]
7.13 Senior local government officials, Chief Executive Officers, Mayors,
and other representative community associations have been baffled by
the gaps and inconsistencies in current legislation and their inability
to enforce mechanisms provided under the Telecommunications National
Code.
7.14 The Commonwealth Department of Environment, Sport and Territories
(DEST) commented upon the exemptions in relation to community concerns
and heritage issues and noted the continuing and growing concern within
the community about carriers' exemptions from legislation to which all
other parties are subject. [6] The Department's
submission included comments from the Australian Heritage Commission and
the Australian Nature Conservation Agency. The Department was concerned
that carriers had not referred activities to the Department for comment
which should have been referred, as they were likely have significant
impacts.
7.15 The Department also noted some carriers had ignored the current
Code by simply preempting Australian Heritage Commission comments on
'referred activities:
There have been instances where carriers have referred activities
to the Australian Heritage Commission for comment, but have commenced
work on those activities within the thirty day period allowed for comment,
and before receiving the Commission's comments. [7]
7.16 Policing carriers' activities to ensure no contraventions of heritage
or conservation values was, by its own admission, beyond the resources
of the Department, which had to rely upon 'community vigilance and voluntary
carrier compliance'. The Department indicated that it was not resourced
to undertake a protective role, and realistically could only act when
problems were drawn to its attention. [8]
7.17 The Department looked forward to the prompt introduction of a
new Code in the expectation that '[it will] provide better notification
and consultation by carriers with local communities, and better assessment
of environmental impacts'. The Department noted the new Code 'will need
to cope with carriers which will range from the very large to the very
small'. This cautionary note refers to the importance of government
maintaining a constant vigilance of carriers, especially following the
introduction of open competition on 1 July 1997 in the telecommunications
industry, which will allow any number of new carriers to enter the market.
7.18 The level of community concern indicated by the number of submissions
to the Committee's inquiry, by legal challenges, petitions, community
demonstrations, and negative press coverage, testified to the fact that
the issue of carrier exemptions and problems with the National Code must
be dealt with to the satisfaction of residents and local government authorities.
| RECOMMENDATION 25:
The Committee recommends AUSTEL, and its successor, the Australian
Communications Authority, be given additional arbitration powers and
take a more proactive role in monitoring the effects of cable rollouts.
|
7.19 A new Telecommunications National Code is being developed to replace
the existing Code which came into force on 30 June 1994. Shortly after
the new government was elected, the Minister for Communications and the
Arts promised that a new National Code would be in place by 1 July 1996.
[9] This did not eventuate.
7.20 In June 1995, the former Labor Government initiated a full review
of the Code. The then Minister for Communications wrote to AUSTEL outlining
the terms of reference for the review, which included notification and
consultation requirements under the Code. AUSTEL was directed to hold
a public inquiry into the operation of the Code since its introduction
on 30 June 1994 and report on its findings.
7.21 On 1 November 1995, AUSTEL released an issues paper on the Code.
The issues paper put forward a range of options for consideration about
its future operation.
7.22 The present Government has recognised major problems with the
existing Code and the need for extensive revisions:
The Government has indicated its intention to put in place as
soon as practicable a new National Code incorporating tighter notification
and consultation procedures, and also taking into account a number of
concerns which have been subsequently put to the Government by the industry
and local government, particularly with regard to aerial cabling by
carriers. It is clear that there needs to be a balance struck between
the need for early availability of advanced communications services
and the right of local communities and their representatives to be consulted
on facilities which affect their environment. [10]
7.23 The Government publicly announced the release of an exposure draft
of a new Telecommunications National Code and a Land Access Code for
public comment on 20 July 1996. The public was given until 2 August
1996 to lodge written submissions.
7.24 However, hopes of allaying community fears by the introduction
of a new National Telecommunications Code have not been realised. Nor
has the prospect of a new Code stopped local government legal challenges
to carriers' exemptions and cable roll-out activities. The Australian
Local Government Association commented:
The telecommunications national code was put to place to provide
a framework of procedures and processes for the carriers to follow.
Unfortunately, this code has not been implemented adequately and, sadly,
the new draft telecommunications code shows little if any significant
improvements in that regard. [11]
7.25 A key concern of many witnesses was the insufficient time provided
by the Government for public comment. Section 331 of the Telecommunications
Act states:
AUSTEL must provide a reasonable opportunity for any member
of the public to make a written submission to AUSTEL about the matter
to which a public inquiry relates.
Given that only a matter of days were provided for public response,
doubt was raised about the sincerity of the Government's desire for
public input and consultation. It is open to question whether the Government
has in fact abided by the letter of the legislation.
7.26 The complexity of the draft Code, and in particular the legalistic
jargon in which it is written, made it even more difficult for interested
persons and organisations to provide written comment within the allocated
time. Indeed, many groups had to seek legal advice in order to assist
in interpreting its implications. The Victorian Local Governance Association
encapsulated the widely-expressed opinion thus:
We are amazed that it is drafted in such legalistic language
without any attempt at plain English. Indeed, it is taking considerable
legal resources to simply work out what are the rights of the community
under that code … we have written to Senator Alston on that matter,
amongst others, about the national code. We are still trying to come
to grips with the code that has only been released now for a couple
of weeks despite the fact that it was promised a couple of months ago.
And it [the Draft Code] certainly does not meet Senator Alston's January
promise that local communities will be fully involved in planning processes
for new telecommunications infrastructure. [12]
7.27 Local government associations have been most vociferous in their
protests, and associations across Australia have made detailed submissions
and representations to the inquiry. Associations around the country
have in evidence indicated a high level of scepticism about the effectiveness
of the existing Code and the draft Code. These concerns have been echoed
by other community and environment groups. Cables Downunder, who represent
33 councils in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland stated:
We have recently had the heartening news of a revision to the
code. It was said that the code would be amended to recognise local
community rights, for communities to have a say about how their environment
was managed, so that the rights of local councils might be to some extent
recognised and there might be greater accountability on behalf of the
carriers. That has not in fact happened. The newly amended code which
was released just 11 days ago does not address these fundamental issues.
[13]
7.28 The Local Government Association of South Australia commented:
In releasing the revised telecommunications national code, the
Government claims to be 'incorporating tighter notification and consultation
procedures'. But, in effect, the new arrangements may simply mean that
communities will be tied up in futile protests which at the end of the
day will only serve to delay the inevitable... It seems that the Government's
intention is to accord the carriers with extraordinary powers while
creating the impression of consultation with the community. [14]
7.29 The expectation is that the Government will remove carrier immunities
on 1 July 1997. According to the Australian Local Government Association:
It [carrier immunities] has forced carriers to adopt the most
hasty methods in developing their networks … as a result the environment
and the rights of the community are being sacrificed for the short term
objective of the development of competing networks. It is for this reason
that ALGA strongly believes that the long-term implications for the
community rather than protecting the short term market share for the
carriers needs to be the priority of the Government. [15]
7.30 According to the Minister of Communications and the Arts, reliance
upon a National Code will 'continue until replaced by a scheme of proper
planning processes, preferably from 1 July 1997, which will be developed
in consultation with States, Territories, and Local Government'. [16]
This clearly bestows competitive advantages on the existing carriers —
advantages they are seeking to exploit to the maximum extent before the
introduction of open competition.
| RECOMMENDATION 26:
The Committee recommends the new Telecommunications National Code
be established as soon as possible, based on the principle recommended
by this Committee, that carriers will no longer be exempt from State,
Territory and local government legislation. |
7.31 This advantage was confirmed by Professor Allan Fels, Chairman
of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission:
...if the early arrivals in the industry have the benefit from
their point of view of being able to roll out without facing restrictions
then they get some advantage over later entrants if the local government
and/or state government restrictions apply and have a significant impact.
[17]
7.32 The Committee asked Professor Fels whether it would be fairer
under competition policy to have the more stringent environmental rules
foreshadowed for the post-1997 environment apply as soon as possible.
He replied that while the exemption is anti-competitive, it can be justified
on the ground that it is in the public interest because of the increased
infrastructure provided to consumers:
… the pursuit of competition in Australia has always been
modified by the view that the overrriding aim is the public benefit
and nearly everything that is anti-competitive can be authorised in
Australia if it is in the public interest. As well, the agreement at
COAG [Council of Australian Governments]between all the governments
said that they favour competition where it is in the public interest.
You would then go back to the underlying public interest question. It
is quite clear that there are some trade-offs between on the one hand
the public interest in there being no environmental degradation through
cable roll-outs and on the other hand the public interest as consumers
in having the maximum availability of new means of transmission of various
services that will appear on the information highway. [18]
7.33 The Committee disagrees that the anti-competitiveness of the exemptions
can be defended on the basis of public interest. Community organisations
have become increasingly alarmed at the impact of these immunities which,
in many instances, permit carriers to disregard community views, duplicate
expensive infrastructure and, in some cases, despoil visual landscapes.
There is a groundswell of critical opinion. Some are questioning the
overall safety of microwave communications and implications for health,
while others reject the right of carriers to dig trenches and damage
trees with underground cabling activities or stretch unsightly cables
along streets.
7.34 A number of local councils in Victoria and New South Wales have
challenged carriers' rights and have begun or have legal action pending.
Local councils from Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland
have suggested to Telstra and Optus a moratorium on overhead cabling.
[19] In relation to aerial cabling,
the City of Port Phillip's submission expressed a commonly-held view:
7.35 The Committee is particularly concerned that Telstra is following
Optus and rolling out overhead cables in many areas. For example, it has
been reported that Telstra plans to rollout overhead cables across 90
per cent of the City of Moreland in Victoria, instead of using underground
ducts which are available. [21] The
Committee considers that the Government must act quickly to prevent this
occurring.
7.36 The Committee holds the view such public outrage cannot be ignored,
and that carrier immunities should be removed as soon as possible.
| RECOMMENDATION 27:
The Committee recommends Part 7 of the Telecommunications Act be amended
as soon as possible to remove carriers' exemptions from State, Territory
and local government environment and planning laws. |
| RECOMMENDATION 28:
The Committee recommends, as part of the new Telecommunications National
Code, under which carriers are no longer granted exemptions, carriers
be required to provide local councils with earlier advice on rollout
timetables, to provide sufficient detail of programs to allow proper
assessment of impacts, coordination of works and community consultation.
|
7.37 This section sets out some witnesses' specific comments about
aerial cabling. The Committee considered it important to draw attention
to each of these comments in order to show the depth of community feeling
about the issue. The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA)
commented:
Firstly, [the legislation] has failed to foresee the possibility
of overhead cabling being used. It was assumed that Australia would
follow the European model of underground cabling … Secondly, the
carriers have been given a blanket exemption for normal state and local
government planning controls. [22]
The ALGA submission referred to their members' concerns about exemptions
and aerial cabling:
The result of the exemptions for telecommunications carriers
from State and Local Government regulations has resulted in competition
on the basis of infrastructure rather than service delivery. The aerial
cabling is being imposed on and opposed by the community, is causing
significant environmental degradation, impacting on urban design, is
uncoordinated, duplicated and presents a health hazard. [23]
7.38 ALGA, reflecting the views of the Council of Australian Governments
(COAG) in its belief that the processes involved in the development
and management of infrastructure should be transparent, complained that
consultation processes have been lacking in many instances:
This by-passing of established and accepted processes has engendered
a level of frustration and sense of powerlessness in the community which
should concern the three spheres of government and the telecommunications
industry itself. [24]
7.39 The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), the peak body for Victorian
local government, represents a population of some 4.1 million and has
been a significant contributor to telecommunications policy over a number
of years. The MAV argued that carriers have concentrated on aerial cabling
(duplicating existing infrastructure) in areas of greatest economic return,
i.e, in highly populated urban areas, at the expense of rural and low
income communities. [25] Urban and
rural communities are both losing out. Urban communities are having streetscapes
despoiled through the reckless provision of unnecessary duplicated infrastructure,
while rural communities are anxiously awaiting the provision of modern
telecommunications infrastructure.
7.40 The Brisbane City Council opposed any exemption allowing carriers
to deploy overhead cabling which, in their opinion, had 'adverse effects
without regard to the views held by a large proportion of the community
and residents of Brisbane'. [26] In
the Council's view, exemptions and the 'inadequate provisions of the Telecommunications
National Code permitted carriers to pay mere lip service to the requirement
for consultation.' [27]
7.41 The Local Government Association of South Australia (LGASA), which
represents all South Australian Councils, indicated that concern was so
strong about carrier immunities under the Telecommunications Act, that
a group of councils, including two metropolitan Adelaide councils, sought
to take the matter to the High Court of Australia. Support for this action
was widespread and 23 metropolitan councils had agreed to share the costs
of legal actions involved in bringing to public attention the shortcomings
of the current legislative framework. [28]
This kind of co-operation is indicative of community feelings in South
Australia.
7.42 Community antipathy towards aerial cabling in South Australia
has been exacerbated by carriers' attaching aerial cables to stobie
poles [concrete electrical poles] in Adelaide suburbs. The Committee
noted from submissions and from the South Australian Government, that
carriers were permitted to attach aerial cables to the electricity authority's
poles and had made payments to the government for this facility.
7.43 The South Australian Government confirmed that carriers had been
allowed to roll out overhead cables using ETSA Corporation's poles because
carriers were exempt from local planning laws. Questioned further by
the Committee, the South Australian Government confirmed that a payment
up front of approximately $2 million was made to ETSA, even though carriers
had the right to use the poles with payment of annual rental. The Committee
suggested that the payment was made as an encouragement. The South Australian
Government said that its permission for aerial cabling had been made:
… in recognising that, there is an opportunity through that
to use the funding from the payments made by carriers to promote further
undergrounding of cables, and in that way, to pursue the government's
objectives. [29]
7.44 The Local Government and Shires' Association of NSW response to
the issue of immunities and aerial cabling was also vehement. The Association
noted:
There has been a massive groundswell of public opposition to
the exemptions and powers provided to telecommunications carriers under
the Telecommunication Act 1991, and
the inadequate planning processes implemented under the Telecommunications
National Code 1994. This has been most strongly expressed at the local
level, where the environmental impact of facilities is felt, and thus
most strongly vocalised through Local Government. Recently, there has
been a particularly strong outcry against the impact of aerial cabling,
principally due to the severe impact it has on local streetscapes and
the widespread belief that duplication is unnecessary to facilitate
competition in the telecommunications industry. [30]
7.45 The City of Boroondara's (Victoria) submission provides ample photographic
evidence of cabling activities and visual pollution in the city environs.
[31] The City served an interlocutory
injunction on Optus Networks Pty. Ltd restraining Optus from
carrying out works in the municipality of Boroondara pending the trial
and determination of proceedings. [32]
7.46 The City of Boroondara, together with the cities of Bayside, Frankston,
Stonnington, Yarra, Mooney Valley, Manningham, Mitcham (SA) and Burnside
(SA), combined to challenge the constitutional validity of the Telecommunications
Act 1991, in relation to carriers' exemptions from local and State planning
laws in the High Court of Australia. [33]
7.47 In New South Wales, four local councils mounted legal challenges
against Optus Networks Pty Ltd in April 1996. Concord, Manly, Woollahra
and North Sydney Councils sought declaratory and injunctive relief in
respect of the deployment of above ground cabling in their respective
areas. [34]
7.48 In the Concord Council's legal challenge to Optus's aerial cabling,
Optus made it clear that it would not abandon aerial cabling unless directed
to by the regulatory authority, AUSTEL. [35]
The Council subsequently complained to AUSTEL, who ruled that Optus had
met its obligations under the Code by approaching Concord Council with
its plans. Aerial cabling recommenced in Concord against that Council's
wishes.
7.49 Judge Dunford of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, was critical
of AUSTEL's interpretations of the provisions of the Code. He observed
that the appeal procedures were not clear and enforcement of AUSTEL's
directions involved commencement of fresh proceedings in the Federal Court,
not by the original complainant, but by the Minister or AUSTEL. [36]
7.50 These examples of widespread legal challenges which have been
taking place around the country by local authorities, and the comments
made in their submissions, illustrate the strength of community opposition
to aerial cabling.
7.51 The question of who should bear the cost of undergrounding cables
was also raised in submissions and in evidence given at hearings. ALGA
argued that the cost of undergrounding should not be borne by ratepayers.
Instead, carriers should pay for undergrounding as the costs can be recouped
from users of services now and in the future. ALGA made the important
point that 'ratepayers already pay for the undergrounding of Telstra infrastructure
through their taxes and therefore should not have to pay again'. [37]
7.52 The Committee suggests that amendments to Part 7 of the Telecommunications
Act should be drafted to make it explicit that State and local governments
can require telecommunications carriers and electricity authorities
to share a common trench, within a reasonable period of time, the costs
of undergrounding to be shared between the carriers and electricity
authorities. The arrangements should provide that:
(a) the costs of providing the trench to be shared equally between
all parties;
(b) the costs of providing a common communications duct to be shared
between the communications carriers; and
(c) the costs of providing special insulation, for example, for electricity
cables, or any other additional costs of undergrounding peculiar to
a particular carrier or authority, to be borne by that carrier or
authority.
7.53 Community dissatisfaction with the visual effects of aerial cabling
and mobile telephone towers has tended to focus the debate on the complex
argument about carriers' exempt activities. Communities also submitted
that the costs of duplication of infrastructure would ultimately be
borne by consumers.
7.54 Waste and inefficient use of resources, in face of the need to
extend resources beyond urban areas to regional and less densely populated
areas, is an important issue which was raised by ALGA:
Duplication of infrastructure, be it overhead or underground
cabling or mobile phone towers, at the moment doubles the cost of installation
and maintenance of the infrastructure. The national resources wasted
by duplication could be much more effectively used for the installation
of state-of-the-art technology, such as fibre optics (rather than out-dated
coaxial cables) and for providing technology to residents outside of
capital cities. The cost of duplication will also, inevitably be passed
on to consumers as carriers recover their cost through the pricing of
their services. As the majority of the cable is also imported, it impacts
on Australia's balance of trade. [38]
7.55 The view of ALGA was echoed by many other groups. Addressing the
financial implications of the duplication of infrastructure, the Municipal
Association of Victoria (MAV) stated:
The duplication of infrastructure, be it overhead or underground,
doubles the cost of installation and maintenance of the Australian telecommunications
infrastructure. This is a waste of national resources which … could
be put to better use in advancing the technology of communications products
and services. [39]
7.56 Many groups have argued that it would be preferable if a single
cable was shared by carriers. Technical advice was received by ALGA which
indicated that this was technically feasible and that Telstra had already
done the necessary design work. [40]
7.57 The Committee was encouraged to see that the Government is seemingly
beginning to take such recommendations seriously. Since this inquiry opened,
it has been reported that the Minister for Communications and the Arts
has asked Telstra and Optus to consider combining cable rollouts to overcome
the problems of duplicating infrastructure. [41]
7.58 Dr Mark Sceats, Chief Executive Officer Australian Photonics Cooperative
Research Centre, stated in his submission that that the hybrid optical
fibre-coaxial (HFC) which both Telstra and Optus are rolling out will
be substantially obsolete possibly within the next 5-10 years. The reason
is that HFC networks have broadband capacity in only one direction. Should
the demand for broadband interactive services grow the network would have
to be upgraded. Such a network would be based on optical fibre deployed
underground. The coaxial cable currently being strung on power poles will
then be obsolete. [42] It should be
made mandatory that obsolete infrastructure has to be removed at the cost
of the carrier who installed it.
| RECOMMENDATION 29:
The Committee recommends it be made mandatory that the removal of
obsolete cabling be at the cost of the installing carrier. |
7.59 Australian Photonics' submission pointed out that it has taken
one hundred years to deploy the existing copper network, and Australia
now faces a scenario that the new $8 billion duplicate HFC networks
would both be obsolete within a decade. The submission went on to point
out that a single optical fibre cable was all that consumers required.
For example, the competition between Telstra and Optus was based on
the limited number of cable TV channels that could be deployed on the
HFC network. But one optical fibre cable could deliver all these channels
(and many more) with very low marginal costs. The same principle applied
to other services such as home shopping:
One optical fibre (FTTC) network will have the capacity to deliver
to the consumer all conceivable point to point communications services.
[43]
7.60 The Committee considers that the Government should urgently take
action to ensure the carriers enter into negotiations with a view to
arriving at an arrangement whereby the carriers in future combine their
competing broadband cable systems into one national network.
7.61 This is one way in which many environmental concerns could be
overcome. The pricing structure for access to the cable could be monitored
by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. This proposal
raises the broader issues of what to do about existing infrastructure
including electricity cabling. The Committee believes there is a window
of opportunity and that the Government should facilitate negotiations
with electricity companies aimed at ensuring that telecommunications
carriers and electricity companies share common underground trenching,
and share the costs of undergrounding. This may require the development
of a national infrastructure policy.
7.62 The Committee received evidence that a Victorian council had recently
approached a major Victorian private electricity company in relation to
the issue of aerial cabling. The electricity company made it clear that
it saw the advantages of undergrounding particularly with regard to improved
reliability and security of the network. In fact, the particular power
company had already budgeted for a further staged undergrounding of powerlines
over the long term. [44]
7.63 In arriving at this conclusion, the Committee has had particular
regard to the huge cost of rolling out duplicate cable networks, and
the fact that such massive expenditure results in a relatively small
percentage of the Australian population having access to broadband services.
Targets announced for the end of 1996 include 2.2 million households
to be passed by Telstra and 2.3 million by Optus Vision. The Committee
considers that this is an unacceptably small number of households that
will benefit from such huge investments.
7.64 Whilst the competitive model established by the Telecommunications
Act has brought great benefits to urban Australia, in the form of lower
prices and greatly improved customer service, it now appears possible
that this model will not meet the needs of many people living in low population
density areas for advanced communications services. The Committee notes
that Optus' current network rollout plans do not extend to rural and remote
Australia.
| RECOMMENDATION 30:
The Committee recommends the Government urgently review the strategy
of allowing dual Hybrid Optical Fibre/Coaxial cable roll out, particularly
having regard to evidence that such networks will be obsolete within
a decade. |
| RECOMMENDATION 31:
The Committee recommends the Government develop a long-term national
program to relocate all existing overhead cables in Australia
underground. |
| RECOMMENDATION 32:
The Committee recommends the Government legislates for all future
cable installations to be underground. |
| RECOMMENDATION 33:
The Committee recommends the Government immediately take action to
ensure the carriers enter into negotiations with a view to arriving
at an arrangement whereby the carriers in future combine their competing
broadband cable systems into one national network. |
7.65 Submissions have urged that, at the very least, the extent of
duplication of infrastructure be limited through co-location. The Coalition's
Better Communications pre-election policy statement included a commitment
to encourage carriers to co-locate facilities to reduce duplication:
An incoming Coalition government will immediately consult with
the telecommunications carriers and the carrier associates to explore
ways of reducing uneconomic duplication of infrastructure, and promoting
the co-location of subscription television/telephone cable facilities.
7.66 As a minimum, it is imperative that the Government ensure that co-location
of infrastructure proceed wherever technically feasible. Carriers should
be encouraged to develop new methods of cabling enable co-location where
this is not technically feasible. [45]
| RECOMMENDATION 34:
The Committee recommends as a minimum, co-location of cables be mandated
wherever it is technically feasible. |
7.67 A significant number of submissions received from community and
environment groups and local government associations expressed concern
about the potential health hazards presented by electromagnetic radiation
(EMR) emissions from mobile phone towers.
7.68 Australians have embraced the use of mobile phones and other new
telecommunications technologies with great enthusiasm. In 1996, there
were 3.3 mobile phone subscribers, a teledensity by mid-1996 of approximately
17 per 100 population. [46] Bearing
this statistic in mind, it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure
the safety of mobile phone users, and to provide early warning to users
of any adverse health implications from the use of mobile phones or emissions
from mobile phone telecommunications towers.
7.69 EMR may prove to be a hidden problem and is one which will not
go away. The Committee is aware that community fears about the unknown
effects of EMR have been exacerbated by lack of access to detailed scientific
and medical research into the potential effects of EMR in Australia.
7.70 CSIRO acknowledged these fears in 1994 when it recommended that
there needed to be an 'orchestrated research effort' into the safety of
EMR of telecommunications frequencies: [47]
Public concern is easily activated by a fear of the unknown.
Terms such as “electromagnetic smog” have been coined which
express concerns about its potentially polluting effects. Because of
public community awareness and industry concern of the risk of litigation
there is an apparent urgency to provide an answer to the question of
safety … public concern is aggravated by the appearance of multitudes
of cellular transmitter antennas on towers adjacent to school playgrounds
and on office buildings. [48]
7.71 CSIRO suggested that if Australia were to have an effective role
in the human health considerations of EMR, it required the establishment
of:
- an expert committee to critically evaluate dosimetry and bioeffects
of published studies that will emanate over the next few years of
increased funded research;
- strategic liaisons that allow direct lines of communication with
the research, regulatory, and political community;
- research protocol for critical areas of research; and
- international collaboration to verify important studies. [49]
7.72 Australia urgently needs to contribute to international research
efforts given the fact that the number of mobile phone subscribers grows
annually. One report suggests that the growth of mobile phone subscribers
was 100.2 per cent between 1994-1995. [50]
7.73 The Government recently acknowledged this public concern in a media
release and announced its intention to 'monitor research into this complex
issue'. [51] This was in response to
a scientific paper, 'Cancer in proximity to TV towers' which drew attention
to recent research into the rate ratio of leukemia and association between
childhood leukemia and proximity to TV towers. [52]
The paper, delivered in Canberra in May 1996 to the Royal Australasian
College of Physicians, recommended that further studies into the effects
of EMR were needed.
7.74 A committee on Electromagnetic Energy (EME) Public Health Issues
has recently been established on electromagnetic public health issues.
The committee of officials is to examine and advise on the adequacy of
health exposure standards, compliance procedures and national and international
research findings. The committee is also tasked with consulting and providing
information to the public. The committee consists of representatives from
the Department of Communications and the Arts, the Department of Health
and Family Services, the Spectrum Management Agency, AUSTEL, the Australian
Radiation Laboratories, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the CSIRO.
[53]
7.75 The Senate Committee has been advised that research on EMR/EME
is not advancing rapidly, that funding for research is still under consideration,
and that any Australian research program is many more months away.
7.76 Lack of funding is a recurring problem in this research field.
CSIRO pointed to similar drawbacks some years ago in its report on EMR:
Research on biological effects and development of safety standards
always lags many years behind technological development, due to the
limited availability for funding … small proportion of the massive
manufacturing benefits would fund substantial research programs. [54]
7.77 The EME Committee has no confirmed reporting date and no preliminary
reports are available. In the meantime, as more and more telecommunication
towers emitting EMR are erected in urban settings, concern is growing
among those living and working in close proximity to such towers.
7.78 The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) expressed its
concerns to the Committee that aerial cabling and mobile phone towers
may present a health hazard. ALGA recommended that an urgent examination
of the most recent evidence on EMR exposure levels associated with mobile
phone towers and other infrastructure was needed. [55]
7.79 Evidence taken by the Committee at its Adelaide hearing exposed
public concerns in that State, and the South Australian experience appears
indicative of concerns held in other states. Dr Margie Ripper, Chairperson,
Mitcham Girls High School Council (SA), expressed the school's and the
local community's concerns in relation to continual low level microwave
transmissions from mobile phone towers. [56]
Dr Ripper related to the Committee the difficulties the school community
had experienced in attempting to have a telecommunications tower relocated
from overlooking the school's land, and the difficulties experienced in
obtaining scientific information on the effects of EMR.
7.80 Dr Ripper described to the Committee the apparent disinterest of
the Commonwealth Environmental Protection Agency, the South Australian
Health Commission, and the South Australian Education Department's Occupational
Health and Safety unit on the issue of EMR. Each agency and authority
appeared to be waiting for guidance. Dr Ripper observed that current legislation
not only failed to protect the community but also prevented the community
from protecting itself by exclusion from state and local planning regulations.
[57] Monitoring processes between the
States and the Commonwealth remain unclear.
7.81 Dr Ripper made a direct link between the partial privatisation
of Telstra and concern about telecommunications towers, in the degree
to which the community can have their concerns about health issues registered
as 'consumers of infrastructure':
Our experience has been that in the current legislation there
has been very little avenue for the likes of us who are occupants of
the land to have any of our concerns taken seriously. Therefore, we
have no grounds on which to expect this is going to get better under
privatisation. [58]
7.82 The Committee was concerned to learn that South Australian schools
had accepted telecommunications towers on their premises in return for
payments made by carriers. Figures of up $100 000 per tower were mentioned.
The Committee received advice from the South Australian Government that
the decision to locate telecommunications towers within school properties
was a local management decision taken by school principals and school
councils. The Department of Education and Children's Services had endeavoured
to support schools in the decision making process by seeking advice
and information from the South Australian Health Commission.
7.83 Given the fact that the South Australian Government had admitted
that it was concerned about the location of towers, [59]
and that equivocal advice and no information other than the current Australian
Standard was provided by the Department of Education and Children's Services
and the SA Health Commission to school councils, the Committee was astonished
to learn that schools were allowed to approve the erection of towers on
school property.
7.84 Dr George Tallis, endocrinologist, Flinders Medical Centre, informed
the Committee that it was unwise to be dismissive of the potential health
hazards imposed by an additional source of EMR. He pointed to a financial
commitment made by the US government of $US 65 million for a five-year
research program into EMR. [60] Pointing
to Australia's lag in research, and possibly outdated standards, Dr Tallis
urged the Committee to recommend a revision of existing legislation and
look into the issue of erecting mobile phone towers in close proximity
to areas in which young children are present, such as kindergartens and
primary schools. [61]
7.85 In relation to Australian Standards (AS 2772.1-1990) and emissions
from telecommunications towers, the following point was made:
Everyone is aware of the Australian standards and everyone is
aware that the telecommunications towers are well within the Australian
standards. Our concern is that evidence is starting to show that continuous
24-hour background radiation, low levels of EMR, may have some long-term
effects on the community. Our position is to treat the matter cautiously
and simply insist that the towers not be located in sensitive areas.
The long-term research may very well lead to a significant change in
Australian standards. [62]
7.86 In view of the difficulties some witnesses had experienced, the
South Australian Government was asked to respond to the Committee's
questions in relation to health concerns and EMR, and funding of research
into EMR on behalf of the people of South Australia.
7.87 The South Australian Government's view was that the Australian
Standard (AS 2772.1-1990) and the National Health and Medical Research
Council Guidelines specified the recommended limits for public exposure
to EMR, and that the public's exposure was 'significantly lower than
the recommended limits specified'. It concluded that present day levels
did not 'represent a public health hazard requiring any corrective action'.
7.88 In regard to funding for research, the South Australian Government
recognised the importance of advancing an understanding of the health
risks of electromagnetic radiation, and that there was a need for further
national and international research. The South Australian Health Commission
would monitor the results of the World Health Organisation's 1996 International
EMF Project to which a senior scientist had been seconded by the South
Australian Government, and it would continue to monitor the results of
other research projects in this field. [63]
7.89 The Committee hoped that coordination of monitoring research results
initiated by State Governments and the Commonwealth will occur without
delay as one of the first tasks undertaken by the newly-established
EME Committee.
7.90 The Committee is not in a position to know whether electromagnetic
radiation from mobile phone towers or other telecommunications facilities
presents health risks. As a precaution, given the very high level of
community concern about this issue and the apparent lack of research
in this area, the Committee considers that it is important that the
Government provides funding for independent research into this area.
| RECOMMENDATION 35:
The Committee recommends that a levy be raised from telecommunications
and other industry contributors responsible for electromagnetic radiation
(EMR) emissions to finance independent research into public health
issues concerning EMR. |
| RECOMMENDATION 36:
The Committee recommends that no further mobile phone towers and bases
be constructed in proximity to kindergartens, schools and hospitals,
and in any location where people may be at risk from long-term exposure
to electromagnetic radiation (EMR), until further research is undertaken
that shows there is no risk to public health. |
7.91 The Committee was presented with overwhelming evidence of widespread
community dissatisfaction with carrier exemptions, and with the costs
imposed by the duplication of infrastructure. Such duplications of aerial
cabling not only placed financial burdens on consumers but also despoiled
environments.
7.92 The Committee considers that the duplication of infrastructure is
costly and environmentally unsound. Whilst many millions of dollars are
being spent on the development of duplicate telecommunications systems
in metropolitan areas, little thought appears to have been given to the
needs of regional, rural and remote communities who are still seeking
access to telephony services as well as newer technologies.
7.93 If duplication continues, Australia will end up with a legacy of
dual networks of HFC cables which are likely to be obsolete within ten
years if demand for interactive services increase. The rollout of dual
networks is occurring in high density urban areas with aerial cabling
damaging urban vistas.
7.94 The Committee is concerned that in pursuit of a higher sale price,
the Government will not impose adequate environmental safeguards to address
these broad community concerns.
Footnotes
[1] Mr R. Smith, Submission No.146, Vol.5; Mr
C. Morton, Submission No.126, Vol.3.
[2] Senator The Hon R. Alston, Minister for
Communications and the Arts, Meet the Press, 1 September 1996.
[3] Telecommunications National Code and
Land Access Code, 1995, Discussion Paper, prepared for the
Minister for Communications and the Arts by AUSTEL, Introductory page.
[4] Mr A. J. Abbot, MP, (Lib. (Warringah) NSW),
`Phone Towers sprouting like toadstools', Sydney Morning Herald,
24 November 1995.
[5] Ms L. Purdom, Vice President, Local Government
Association (SA), Official Hansard Report, 23 July 1996,
p.588.
[6] Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, Submission No.359, Vol.15, p.2844.
[7] Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, Submission No.359, Vol.15, p.2844.
[8] Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, Submission No.359, Vol.15, p.2844.
[9] Senator the Hon R. Alston, Opening Address,
ATUG `96, Conference of the Australian Telecommunications Users Group,
Melbourne 30 April 1996.
[10] Preamble, Discussion Paper: Telecommunications
National Code and Land Access Code, 1996.
[11] Mayor D. Plumridge, AM, President, Australian
Local Government Association, Submission No.144, Vol.5, p.893.
[12] Mr M. Hill, Secretary, and Mr Peter Johnstone,
Member, Victorian Local Governance Association, Official Hansard Report,
30 July 1996, p.914-915.
[13] Mr M. Kennedy, Spokesperson, Cables Downunder,
Official Hansard Report, 30 July 1996, p.920.
[14] Ms L. Purdom, Vice President, Local Government
Association, Official Hansard Report, 23 July 1996, p.589.
[15] Australian Local Government Association,
Submission No.144, Vol.5, p.898.
[16] Minister for Communications and the Arts,
Media Release, 24 April 1996.
[17] Professor A. Fels, Australian Competition
and Consumer Commission, Official Hansard Report, 30 July
1996, p.892.
[18] Professor A. Fels, Australian Competition
and Consumer Commission, Official Hansard Report, 30 July
1996, p.892.
[19] `Defer cabling say councils', The Age,
13 April 1996.
[20] City of Port Phillip, Submission No.639,
Vol.16.
[21] Moreland Courier, 12 August 1996,
p.3.
[22] Australian Local Government Association,
Submission No.144, Vol.5, p.897.
[23] Australian Local Government Association,
Submission No.144, Vol.5, p.896.
[24] Australian Local Government Association,
Official Hansard Report, 26 July 1996, p.831.
[25] Municipal Association of Victoria, Submission
No.130, Vol.4, p.680.
[26] Brisbane City Council, Submission No.301,
Vol.11, p.2058.
[27] Brisbane City Council, Submission No.301,
Vol.11, p.2058.
[28] Local Government Association of South
Australia, Submission No.132, Vol.4, p.760.
[29] Mr P. Murchland, Industry Development
Strategist, Department of Information Industries, Official Hansard
Report, 23 July 1996, pp.613-614.
[30] Local Government and Shires Associations
of NSW, Submission No.261, Vol.9, p.1687.
[31] City of Boroondara, Submission No.297,
Vol.10, pp.1947-1959.
[32] City of Boroondara and Optus Networks
Pty Ltd: Supreme Court of Australia Practice Court, No.8644 of 1995, 19,
10, 21 December 1995, Submission No.297, Vol.10, pp.1965-1991.
[33] Statement of Claim: Stonnington City Council,
Boroondara City Council, Bayside City Council, Yarra City Council, Frankston
City Council, Moonee Valley City Council and Manningham City Council,
and Optus Networks Pty. Ltd., High Court of Australia, 22 March 1996.
[34] Concord Council v Optus Networks Pty Ltd
(No.3); North Sydney Council, Title: Concord Council v Optus Networks
Pty Ltd (No.3); North Sydney Council v Optus Networks Pty Ltd (No.3);
Woollahra Council v. Optus Networks Pty Ltd (No.3); Manly Council v Optus
Networks Pty Ltd (No.3): Supreme Court of New South Wales Administrative
law Division BC9601223, Coram Dunford J No.30091 of 1995; 30092 of 1995;
30093 of 1995; 30094 of 1995 delivered 11 April 1996, (56 pages).
[35] Concord Council v Optus Networks Pty Ltd
(No 3); North Sydney Council, Title: Concord Council v Optus Networks
Pty Ltd (No.3); North Sydney Council v Optus Networks Pty Ltd (No.3);
Woollahra Council v. Optus Networks Pty Ltd (No.3); Manly Council v Optus
Networks Pty Ltd (No.3): Supreme Court of New South Wales Administrative
law Division BC9601223, Coram Dunford J No.30091 of 1995; 30092 of 1995;
30093 of 1995; 30094 of 1995 delivered 11 April 1996, (56 pages).
[36] Concord Council v Optus Networks Pty Ltd
(No.3); North Sydney Council, Title: Concord Council v Optus Networks
Pty Ltd (No.3); North Sydney Council v Optus Networks Pty Ltd (No.3);
Woollahra Council v. Optus Networks Pty Ltd (No.3); Manly Council v Optus
Networks Pty Ltd (No.3): Supreme Court of New South Wales Administrative
law Division BC9601223, Coram Dunford J No.30091 of 1995; 30092 of 1995;
30093 of 1995; 30094 of 1995 delivered 11 April 1996, (56 pages).
[37] Australian Local Government Association,
Submission No.144, Vol.5, p.901.
[38] Australian Local Government Association,
Submission No.144, Vol.5, p.900.
[39] Municipal Association of Victoria,
Official Hansard Report, 30 July 1996, p.682.
[40] Australian Local Government Association,
Submission No.144, Vol.5, p.900.
[41] `Pressure for single Optus-Telstra cable',
Australian Financial Review, 18 August 1996.
[42] Dr M. Sceats, Australian Photonics Co-operative
Research Centre, Submission No.332, Vol.12.
[43] Dr M. Sceats, Australian Photonics Co-operative
Research Centre, Submission No.332, Vol.12, p.2406.
[44] Mr M. Hill, Victorian Local Governance
Association, Submission No.339B, Vol.16, p. 3233.
[45] Department of Environment, Sport and Territories,
Submission No.335, Vol.13, p.2439.
[46] Telecommunications Strategies Report
- 1996-1997, Paul Budde Communication Pty. Ltd., 1996, p.1.
[47] CSIRO Report Status of Research on Biological
Effects and Safety of Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies,
CSIRO, 1994, p.12.
[48] CSIRO Report Status of Research on Biological
Effects and Safety of Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies,
CSIRO, June 1994, Introduction, p.1.
[49] CSIRO Report Status of Research on Biological
Effects and Safety of Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies,
CSIRO, 1994, p.13.
[50] Telecommunications Strategies Report
- 1996-1997, Paul Budde Communication Pty. Ltd. 1996, p.1.
[51] Senator the Hon R. Alston, Minister for
Communications and the Arts, Media Release `Government acts on community
concerns about exposure to electromagnetic energy', 10 May 1996.
[52] Abstract: Cancer in Proximity to TV Towers.
B Hocking, Consultation: Melbourne; I.Gordon, Melbourne University, Statistical
Centre; G. Hatfield, Consulting Engineer, Melbourne; H. Grain, Data Consultant,
Melbourne, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Annual Scientific
Meeting, Canberra, 7-10 May 1996.
[53] Senator the Hon R. Alston, Minister for
Communications and the Arts, Second Reading Speech, Telecommunications
(Carrrier License Fees) Amendment Bill 1996, Parliamentary Debates, Senate,
27 June 1996.
[54] CSIRO Report Status of Research on Biological
Effects and Safety of Electromagnetic Radiation: Telecommunications Frequencies,
CSIRO, 1994, p.4.
[55] ALGA, Submission No.144, Vol.5, p.897.
[56] Official Hansard Report, 23 July
1996, p.630.
[57] Dr M. Ripper, Chairperson, Mitcham Girls
High School Council, Submission No.176, Vol.6, p.630.
[58] Dr M. Ripper, Chairperson, Mitcham Girls
High School Council, Submission No.176, Vol.6, p.646.
[59] The Hon Mr R. Lawson, Member, Legislative
Council, and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information Technology,
South Australia, Official Hansard Report, 23 July 1996, p.621;
Pamela Martin, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, South Australian
Department of the Premier and Cabinet's response to Question on Notice,
No.7 (Parts a,b,c), 21 August 1996.
[60] Dr G. Tallis, Endocrinologist, Submission
No.119, Vol.5, p.98.
[61] Dr G. Tallis, Endocrinologist, Official
Hansard Report, 23 July 1996, p.607.
[62] Mr M. Shute, Private Citizen, City of
Mitcham, Official Hansard Report, 23 July 1996, p.647.
[63] Ms P. Martin, Director, Intergovernmental
Relations, South Australian Department of the Premier and Cabinet's response
to Questions on Notice, Nos.9 & 10, 21 August 1996.