Page 2477 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 22 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
become aware of the issue after the consultation period has ended. It is then that we see communities fighting to have decisions reversed. It is, of course, a lot easier for them to raise their objections before approval is given, and these objections can then be taken into account when a decision about the location of a telecommunications facility is being made. I know it is difficult to reach everyone and inform them about proposed developments. Some people just do not realise or pay attention to what is happening until they see something being built. I know I fit into that category, Mr Speaker.
This is why it is important for all avenues of public consultation to be utilised. Homes need to be letterboxed, advertisements need to be taken out in local papers and aired over the radio, and local meetings need to be arranged and advertised. It is through such consultative avenues that more people will be informed, giving them the opportunity to comment on any proposed developments.
There are some people who will not notice until the last moment. We put up posters around the area about this meeting and we now have a contact person who may have letterboxed around the area. But on Monday of last week, I think it was, I got a phone call from somebody. That lady had only just noticed that the tower was being erected. She had not seen anything before. This lady was absolutely upset, and she would probably be one of the few people in Canberra who does not have a mobile phone. She wanted the opportunity to express her concerns, and I was happy to provide her with the opportunity to express those concerns.
I do not necessarily agree with her that towers should not go up at all, but she does have the right to express those concerns. I think it is important that the telecommunications companies and the authorities make sure that as much information as possible is put out there. It leads to fewer problems down the track and avoids a situation where concerns are not being responded to or members of the public are saying, “We do not want it there, but we also do not want it on such and such a hill.” They are given a guarantee by the area manager that it will not go next to the water tower that they are concerned about, and the next thing they find is that it is going next to the water tower that they have been told it will not go next to. Obviously, the reaction is going to be negative. The people who are trying to roll out the telecommunications towers have to deal with problems as they come and explain things to people, and that does take time. But it is part of their job to actually make sure that they are addressing those concerns.
So I thank Dr Foskey for raising this issue. It is an important issue that affects many constituents in all of our electorates. I know that it is one that has raised concerns. I do not necessarily share the concerns that have been raised, and I do take the points that Mr Corbell has raised about agreeing with or accepting the assessments that have been made by the federal government, but we do need to deal with the concerns that are raised in a sensitive fashion. I will continue to work with the community and take to the telecommunications company the concerns that they raise with me.
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (4.44): I note the points raised here by the minister about the characteristics of the 3G microwave transmission tower. My understanding, too, is that this tower is a shorter tower. It has a far different characteristic of transmission wave. I am no expert on communications; I know a little bit about it. I understand that, because this 3G tower transmits a soft wave, therefore it has a shorter reach. It is understandable
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .