Too many poor calls: Conroy should go

THE list of instances of maladministration is long and he is unfit to be a minister.

NEPOTISM, policy incompetence and a poor understanding of the consequence of his actions all add up to the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, deserving to be axed from the federal ministry.

If governments were not required to take into consideration the political fallout attached to decision-making about who does and does not sit in cabinet, Kevin Rudd would surely have sacked Conroy by now. But Rudd doesn't need the bad press that removing the Communications Minister would create, and Conroy is one of the factional chiefs in the all powerful national Right of the Labor Party. That makes him a protected species.

Consider for a moment the list of examples of maladministration and inappropriate decision-making Conroy has been involved in.

The $43 billion national broadband network was put out to tender at a cost to taxpayers of $30 million. The government wasn't satisfied with any of the bids (no surprise to anyone who knows anything about the scale of what was being asked of the bidders) so it has committed to build the network itself, after which it will seek private-sector interest in investing in the scheme.

No business case for the rollout has been presented; no modelling of the expected usage of the system has been undertaken. Even if you take the view that it is the job of government to get involved in such enterprises, the way in which Conroy went about convincing the Prime Minister to support such an expensive public policy decision (they agreed to do so in conversation on a VIP flight) was anything but rigorous. Conroy needed a political face-saving after Telstra was knocked out of the bidding process for a non-compliant bid.

The original pre-election promise was to roll out fibre-to-the-node. But subsequently they decided to go all the way to 90 per cent of people's homes, at a significant extra cost.

Conroy has no idea what the take-up by potential consumers of this expensive new rollout will be. He therefore has no idea what private-sector interest there will be in purchasing into the network. He therefore can't know what the ultimate bill to the taxpayer will end up being. It will probably be in the billions of dollars.

An implementation study is being conducted by consultancy firms McKinsey and KPMG, the results of which are expected to be released in the first half of this year. Surely it would have made more sense to have an implementation study before deciding to implement the policy.

The last thing the government needs in an election year is NBN Co to be hostile towards it, in particular if projections about the network's rollout blow the budget. So who did the minister recommend the NBN Co hire on a $450,000 salary to head the company's public affairs? None other than former Labor Party apparatchik Mike Kaiser. The appointment was made without the position being advertised, without an interview process that included anyone but Kaiser, and only after Kaiser had successfully lobbied for the company's head office to be located in Queensland, when he was chief of staff to the Queensland Premier. Even in the shady world of political decision-making, that is an especially dodgy order of events, even if only in the perception stakes.

The final proof of Conroy's unsuitability to remain a minister is his slipshod decision to award free-to-air television networks a $250m reduction in their licensing fees over the next two years.

The Seven Network will be especially happy with the decision -- it effectively means the taxpayer funded its unsuccessful C7 litigation.

Right at a time when the government is cutting rebates to obstetrics fees, means-testing private health rebates as well as the baby bonus, and reducing the amount of money ageing Australians can tax-effectively invest in their super funds, all under the guise of the need to rein in government spending, Conroy has given wealthy television moguls a financial windfall.

Conroy's taxpayer-funded $250m handout (which is effectively what it amounts to) has led some analysts to suggest in an election year the government is looking to buy some good publicity from what remains the media sector with the greatest viewer penetration.

That's going a step too far. But the move certainly amounts to poor public policy with the impression of Conroy looking after vested interests.

The decision has left the radio and pay-television industries wondering what the minister will do for them. If the answer is nothing, he is inconsistent. If he does something, that will be at even more cost to the taxpayer.

The worst part about Conroy's decision (apart from going skiing with Kerry Stokes in the US shortly before making the fee cut) is that he got nothing out of the reduced licence fees for viewers. His office has suggested increased local content was the carrot, but he has not used a stick to ensure that actually happens. Nowhere written into the decision to wave $250m in fees is a requirement that the networks boost local content.

Conroy has presided over an expensive and unplanned decision to roll out broadband he can't be sure will be utilised by the public. He has suggested to the head of the company charged with doing so it should hire a Labor spin doctor, which it did without a competitive selection process. And he has cost the taxpayer $250m by waiving licence fees for free-to-air TV networks in an election year.

One big conspiracy? Probably not (I am not sure if Conroy is capable of that). Multiple failures worthy of a minister's head? You bet.