Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (4 November) . . Page.. 3516 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, this was a quite interesting inquiry dealing with issues of amenity rights relating to satellite dishes and cables. To me, the most interesting part of the inquiry was to do with the overhead cables. Probably the most controversial part of the report is the committee's recommendation that the Government permit the installation of overhead bundled cable to carry telecommunications technology only if, at the same time, the existing overhead electricity wires are bundled into one cable.

Mr Speaker, we have a particular reason for doing this. Right down the backyards of some 70 per cent of people in the ACT run four overhead wires. There is not only an issue about the aesthetics of the poles and wires in the back of people's yards; there is also a safety issue. One of the things that were drawn to the committee's attention, Mr Speaker, is that not only would the bundled cable which would replace those be lower in the backyard, but trees could grow up around them. Visually it would be better. Secondly, the bundled cables are much safer. Even if they fell onto the ground, which is unlikely, they could even be touched without any damage. There is also a visual impact.

This is at a time when we are talking about allowing a further cable to go onto those poles. When we have the four electricity cables, we currently often have a Telecom wire there as well, and we are talking about yet another wire to carry telecommunications technology. We could reduce that to two cables, Mr Speaker. One would be about as thick as my wrist - a quite substantial cable - and the smaller telecommunications one would be similar to the microphone stands that members have in front of them, or maybe a tiny bit thicker.

Another issue has come to my attention since the committee tabled the report. I have had a letter from someone who has been examining the electromagnetic fields from wires in backyards. We know that there has been a great deal of debate in the courts with reference to high voltage wires going through areas, and this person drew my attention to the fact that the bundled cabling does not give off electromagnetic fields. The cables within those bundles neutralise them. So, from a health perspective, there would be no problem there.

Mr Speaker, of course, there would be extra costs associated with such a measure; but it seems to me that this is an appropriate time because, in the long term, we are likely to change from the overhead wires to bundled cabling. Taking into account the safety issues and the fact that trees would not need to be trimmed so regularly, the general advantage to the community would be significant. There is only one way to do it better than having bundled cabling, I guess, and that is to have the cables go underground. I suppose all of us would feel that that would be the best method of dealing with this issue, but we have not yet seen the figures for underground cabling. The general figures that were drawn to my attention indicated that that method would be much too expensive.

Mr Speaker, the committee made a series of other recommendations about domestic residences and the use of satellite dishes, all of which, I believe, are appropriate to clarifying the design and siting provisions of the Territory Plan. We believe that we have taken a sensible approach to the issues before us.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .