TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (15:27): I am reporting today on campaigns that I have been involved with and sadly have been completely unsuccessful in achieving in relation to Ashford and different communities that I have lived in. I am talking about legislative framework for telecommunications and mobile network infrastructure.

We all love our mobile phones and we all use them, but I guess the issue for me has been the suitable location of those mobile phone towers. When I talk about the legislative framework, it doesn't seem to me as if anything has changed very much since the last campaign I was involved in which was in 2006-07. At the time residents, St Anthony's School staff and parents, the member for Hindmarsh (Steve Georganas), the Environmental Defender's Office and I all unsuccessfully campaigned against the establishment of a telecommunications base station on the land that is near the intersection of Cross Road and South Road.

The federal minister at the time was Senator Helen Coonan and, although she responded to the letters and the deputations that I made to her, basically nothing changed. I was also involved in meeting the Marion Council and, again, they were very sympathetic but in the end the Marion Council supported the development application to erect a 25-metre tower 200 metres off the northern boundary of St Anthony's School at Castle Street, Edwardstown, and very close (within 75 to 200 metres, depending on where you are in Christina Street) to residential properties in Edwardstown.

In late February this year I received correspondence from the Chair of St Anthony's School Board, Ms Susan Stewart, and also Ms Cate Birch, the Principal of the school, urging me to oppose the upgrade of what we locally call the 'Jayco Mobile Phone Tower' on South Road, Edwardstown. The upgrade of the tower is to install six new panel antennas onto a triangular head frame at the centreline heights of 21.7 and 23.5 metres; to relocate three existing panel antennas to a new turret mount above the head frame at the centre height of 25.4 metres; install 'nice' (the proposer's comment) new remote units—and I don't know what that means—below the head frame at 22 metres; and associated ancillary works.

In summary of the letters I have received, and also the meetings I have had on this issue, it is interesting to note that the South Australian Commission for Catholic Schools says, in their siting of mobile phone towers policy:

Every effort to prevent mobile telephone towers from being erected within 300 metres of those parts of a property which are in use by students and/or staff, and make every possible effort to have any mobile phone tower so erected removed.

We also have a number of constituents. Mr Kevin Walsh has campaigned directly against the tower but, like the school, also complained about the tardy consultation. He managed to get a submission in to the appropriate authorities and also, because of the poor way in which the whole thing has been conducted regarding the extension, managed to get the period of consultation and submission extended to 19 March.

Many of us in the electorate are concerned about the health problems, particularly with electromagnetic radiation. Because there is so much contrary information around it is very difficult to get anywhere with this particular campaign or campaigns, but I say that while we do not know one way or the other, we really should apply a precautionary principle. It seems to me that although we want and need these towers, we should not locate them near schools, workplaces or houses, or where the intensity of the electromagnetic radiation emissions falls where people are congregated for a long time.