Opinion: What makes a good Communications Minister?

By Brett Winterford on Jun 9, 2010 4:51 PM
Filed under Strategy

Senator Kate Lundy in the spotlight.

Question: How could a Communications Minister promising $43 billion of investment in his industry and the break-up of a monopolistic incumbent become the subject of so much ridicule?

Answer: The internet filter - a single, broken spoke jammed in the wheel of the Rudd Government's wider cyber security policy.

The filter plan has made Senator Stephen Conroy's job impossibly difficult. The volume of protest around the filter issue would suggest Conroy is among the least popular communications ministers in Australian political history, even if he scores well on other policies.

Technology bloggers deride him, he is mocked in circulars sent around to the entire staff of IT companies - even the foreign press have lampooned his filter plan from further afield.

The filter seems to colour Conroy's every word.

In late May, he was handed a smoking gun against his ideological opponents, in the unlikely shape of Google's Wi-Fi privacy breach.

But the opportunity was wasted -- as soon as Conroy brought it up in Parliament, it was assumed that his rant was simply payback for Google's criticism of his filter plan.

It appears Conroy hadn't learned from a gaffe made earlier in his tenure, in which he passed comment on iiNet's defence against AFACT well before the case was heard by a judge.

In the wings

In the wings, Senator Conroy's ALP colleague Kate Lundy has watched and - for the most part - held her tongue. A backbencher with intimate links to the technology industry, Lundy has maintained her gaze on crystal-ball topics such as eGovernment to maintain a constructive influence on the sector.

But in the last 48 hours, Lundy has risen to the occasion as the popularity of her peers sag.

Using her blog, she has suggested not one but two alternatives to Senator Conroy's filter, and also expressed some alarm as to whether Australians will be afforded the right protections should her colleagues sign the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

Today, she was blogging live in The Australian about eGovernment.

There has always been a sense in the technology sector that Lundy should have been the Communications Minister in the first place.

Arguably, it was Stephen Conroy's sharp political skills (and factional ties) that placed him ahead of Lundy for the portfolio, despite her experience as Shadow Communications Minister.

Now, with the filter policy delayed and Conroy taking flak, would she make a viable alternative?

Lundy's detractors suggest that unlike Conroy, she is too much a fence-sitter to be a Minister - "dishwater weak" were the words used by pundits on Twitter today.

Some have asked whether she would cross the floor if she felt strongly enough on a given issue, but her opponents would need to actually come up with a stance worth crossing for.

If there is a flakiness about Lundy, it is borne of her even-handedness and gravitation to compromise -- admirable qualities in a person, but not always constructive as a Minister.

For her part, Lundy has never complained publicly (or privately to journalists, to my knowledge) about her position on the backbench.

It may require a change in the party's leadership - or Conroy's resignation - to elevate her to lead the portfolio.

But as support for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd wanes, political commentators have raised the prospect of Deputy PM Julia Gillard being an easier sell against Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott in the forthcoming election.

Could the same strategy apply in the IT sector? Would the best means of fighting off an opposition devoid of a clearly expressed communications strategy (beyond Abbott's plan to scrap the NBN) be to promote a Senator with demonstrated knowledge of the issues at hand?

What do you think?

Opinion: What makes a good Communications Minister?

20 comments in this discussion

"Tom, the reason your comms minister has been attracting a remarkable amount of flak is because he is seeking to impose secret government censorship on false premises while permitting no real ..."

By anonymous

Tags

kate lundy, senator conroy, filter, censorship, egov

Tim Berners-Lee calls data retention a 'really, really bad idea'

Attorney-General agency implicated in web blocking scandal

Industry backs 'workable' filter solution

Conroy abandons mandatory ISP filtering

Breaking Stories

Telstra opposes 700 MHz for emergency 4G network

AusPost, NAB combine on Agile project

Aussie IT workers threatened by skilled migrants: survey

Transfield wins new NBN contracts

G8 countries sign up to Open Data Charter

Comments: 20

realitybites Jun 9, 2010 5:14 PM	You bet! I think Kate would make an excellent communications minister. At this point in time I think Humphrey B Bear could do a better job. (No offense/reference intended to you Kate.)
nvrom Jun 9, 2010 5:24 PM	Hey, I'd vote for Humphrey B Bear too, at least there would be no irrational comments (100% accurate filtering?). And not in anyway diminishing my loathing of the filter, but don't forget the lack of action on the e-waste issue either. Will be unable to vote for anyone who would give Conroy another run.
btone Jun 9, 2010 5:46 PM	Of course Lundy should have been the minister, it was a factional deal from Conroy's scummy file of favours that got a drone over qualified to be a shop steward in the job, that and the fact that most federal politicians equate technology as close to heavy metal music in terms of desirability, familiarity or awareness. - Delete Conroy, forward to Channel 7 boardroom with lifetime super to match a minor Maquarie Bank trader's - Install Lundy - Pray that Rudd doesn't stuff up the rest of the agenda through Sunday arvo prayer meetings with the ACL cult. - Pray that Abbott puts his salty smelling bare feet in his mouth re the NBN and/or the filter. - Pray that every propeller head in Australia hasn't already defected to the Greens or the raving looney party from the local pub. - Pray that God (Google) gets back onside before the election. - Pay me for hollowman advice (see all above) - I couldn't be any worse than the clowns they are listening to now...
anonymous Jun 9, 2010 5:54 PM	@btone, LMFAO. And Lundy is the only one who knows what she is talking about, so sadly that means she will never get the gig. In fact she can't even talk the common sense that she knows is right, because the factional heavies won't let her.
listohan Jun 9, 2010 5:57 PM	Too often, politics gets in the way of appointing the best person for the job. It applies in many democracies and sometimes in judicial appointments also where there is too much politics in play (did someone say the US Supreme Court?). But it is open to Australia to break the mould if we can recognise and promote talent. Particularly talent which does not spend its time playing the usual games which get people recognised. Kate really understands technical issues. Having seen the latest news on the Apple iPhone 4 and reflecting on the fact it did not exist in 2007, we clearly have not seen anything yet. Kate is probably alone in having sufficient vision for communications -- this essential part of our future. One day it could even rival the mining industry in its powers to deliver prosperity for all.
bjm1702 Jun 9, 2010 9:00 PM	Clearly Senator Kate Lundy seems to be the most qualified person for the job. Conroy doesn't even have a basic understanding of how the internet works, as shown in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gl7X6peh-w&feature=player_embedded (which is quite hilarious)
peterniss Jun 10, 2010 2:41 AM	What makes a good Communications Minister? Thats easy. Somebody who is qualified in the field of information technology who can represent the people. Is Stephen Conroy qualified? No. Not only does he not understand technology, nor hold and experience, certifications, qualifications or training in the field of IT he fails to represent the will of the people. I believe those in charge of a Countries entire information technology structure should hold a minimum set of qualifications such as a CCNA. It would save the taxpayer a whole lot of money from all the failed ideas that have wasted so much taxpayer money. You dont have to look to far to see epic failings on Stephen Conroys part. We pay his wages and hes not up to the job.
MichaelJM Jun 10, 2010 10:05 AM	What makes a good Communications Minister? Someone who has everything that Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy doesn't, intelligence, common sense and knowledge. Quite clearly, his major stuff up is the "Internet Filter" but there have been many others. He just doesn't have what is needed to successfully do his job. Without intending any disrespect to Senator Kate Lundy, just about anyone would do a better job in the Communications portfolio than Senator Stephen Conroy. Let's give Senator Kate Lundy an opportunity in this important portfolio before there are any more serious stuff ups (particularly in the area of the NBN) from Senator Stephen Conroy.
Mitch Jun 10, 2010 10:08 AM	Well Conroy really knows how to be an incompetent communications minister. Someone like Mark Newton would make a great CM.
anonymous Jun 10, 2010 11:37 AM	Be fair, people, Conboy has exactly what it takes to be comms minister: 1) faction support that he has spent years perfecting; 2) religious bigotry that matches the Dear Leader; 3) a great holiday relationship with media owners; 4) no comms knowledge at all to interfere with his factional and political wheeling/dealing.
Daveh Jun 10, 2010 11:39 AM	"There’s a staggering number of Australians being in having their computers infected at the moment, up to 20,000 — uh — can regularly be getting infected by these spams or scams, that come through the portal." - see bjm1702's link. Come on ITNews, wheres the mention of this? "Technology Minister speaks Gibberish". How can we (Australians) claim to be a nation of anything but Luddites with THIS being the political representative for technology. IT Media in Australia is giving this 0 coverage but its on the register - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/09/conroy_gibber/ The Pom's care more about how unintelligible Conroy is than our local IT media.....
BrettWinterford Jun 10, 2010 3:05 PM	@DaveH - I don't think a mumbled twist of Conroy's tongue is particularly newsworthy (unless its a Freudian one!). I have had a giggle at that slip up, sure, but there are plenty of other places to go to poke fun at the Minister. That's what blogs are for!
Tom Brown Jun 10, 2010 3:41 PM	I read Mark Newtons letter to The Hon Kate Ellis MP Minister for Youth and Sport. I would like to see The Hon Ellis's response. I found the letter contained many issues all of which Mr Newton assumed a certain perspective neither based on evidence nor logical conclusion. Mr Newton starts in paragraph 4 with an attack on Senator Conroy "The Senator has attacked critics by comparing them to child abusers; refused to provide details of his policy then maligned opponents for their “speculative” remarks; lied to the Australian voting public about the availability of an “opt-out” in December 20074; and failed to consult with the 21 million Australian" Now it seems to me that the Senator has been discussing this to no end, answering questions of which many appear purposely designed to cause nuisance and misdirection. I do not see Mr Newtons point, just the opposite. All the technical questions raised are furphies. It has been proven around the world that he internet can be controlled in many ways, even to the extent in the US and China where as I believe they filter all traffic for that of interest to the government. Also the governments proposal is not to filter internet traffic or content as many including Mr Newton misrepresent, for example on page 3 of Mr Newtons letter where he uses traffic and content as two of his important points " * is ineffective at inspecting or blocking “Peer to Peer” traffic that comprises over 60% of Australia’s Internet traffic; and * fails to accurately distinguish between legal and illegal content even when specifically configured with lists of illegal content under laboratory conditions." The Governments proposal is just to blacklist some websites. It has been clearly shown that most Australians (including me) just want a reasonably safe internet. They don't care if they don't get onto some child porn or violence website just the opposite. I would like to see more stringent international laws about web content but unfortunately we will probably only see more laws to fund the objectives of big corporate against ordinary people on IP rights. And for all the criticism there are calls in these comments for things much more obtuse see Daveh 's comments about infections then abuses the Minister for gibberish. Again this must only be taken as hogwash to muddy the topic, "gibberish". And off course the opposition would reverse it "not" when they get to power.
Daveh Jun 10, 2010 4:50 PM	Tom, first and foremost. The filtering in China is significantly different to what the government is proposing. In China, content is filtered at the domain level, not the URL level. China for example blocks Youtube.com whereas the Australian proposal will filter individual URL's. So the scale of the list grows with the complexity of each offending URL within a domain. IE, the list needs to block individual YouTube videos, not just YouTube. This means that the list grows for every offending video added to YouTube. Additionally, in Australia, any over blocking would be outside the scope of the filter and would give pathways for rebuke as they CANNOT legally block material that isnt blacklisted, in China you do as the Government says. If we followed the Chinese example, then one video that is RC under Australian law on YouTube would mean that all of YouTube is blocked. Can you see how people might not like this method?? Given that all it would take is one piece of material thats legal in America (under say, their free speech legislation) and then Poof, YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, Google, any website that allows user generated dynamic content is Blocked. So, why dont we just exclude all these popular websites? Makes the law pointless. Then we go with the current proposal, individual URL blocking. This has its own problems. As the list grows, the time to check against the list grows. So, then what happens when the length of the list eclipses the timeouts on web-servers and web-browsers? All internet requests have time-outs, when the list hits a certain critical length it fails. So, whats wrong with this? Well, any bright soul will create one domain with unacceptable content with individual URLs that will each need to be added and checked against, with the explicit purpose of making the filter break the internet. Well, why don't we common sense the blacklist? Because the people who are on it will have recourse based on those who aren't. As for my comments about Conroy's Gaffe being newsworthy, this is one of many examples that the man has no clue and if his aides and the people informing him cant make him sound like he knows what he is saying thats a serious problem. Kate as people pointed out has spent time and effort learning and desires recognition. Conroy cant or wont spend the effort to learn technology. Why should the ministers lack of knowledge about the portfolio he manages not be news worthy? This is the person who is the face of Digital Australia, who will be the technological face of Australia to all countries. How can this be good to encourage any business or investment in Australian Technology Sector, when the minister in charge shows that he cannot or does not care? Where would you put your money? Somewhere that has people who foster technology? Or somewhere that is run by people who refuse to understand?
Tom Brown Jun 11, 2010 1:11 PM	Thankyou for your response Daveh. I do find myself critical of the critics. I think anyone would receive the same rubbish. I think China filter checks pretty well everything, you tube is simply banned as they will not comply with that governments regulation. And Google has been complying but don't want to and will also be cut off if they do not comply, no comparison and you know that. And you would have to have a law if you wanted to block as you suggest, so another law. The newsworthiness of the gaffes seem to be most prevalent in the critics courts, I can forgive a person for not knowing everything especially a politician. The technology I guess to be implemented here is simple. All blacklist programs are similar and you know that, even Microsoft has and continues to grow a blacklist in the Smartscreen Filter which by the way does delay a page momentarily. I have never heard the governments nor Microsoft's claim their filters as total solutions and I have seen the Minister saying so about theirs in the news but so many critical comments I see make out that it is, then the critics criticise that purposely falsified assumption. The assumption also that as he has a lack of IT tech savvy that he cannot do the job. He is not the one doing the work, he is the front man given the job of meeting with and addressing people about the issues raised, he only needs good advice and responsible criticism. I believe Conroy is doing the best anyone would, considering the nature of the criticisms. So why are the critics making this stuff up, boredom, politics, fear of loss of their wild frontier please? I saw of the last government big accomplishment, Netnanny, 3000 hits at a cost of 93 million but it was opt out, no planned development of broadband network infrastructure or at least they weren't publicly talking about IT , they still cannot offer a proposal other than saying the governments is flawed and theirs is better. Will Tony be better?
Rhino Jun 11, 2010 3:41 PM	Tom, I don't know if Tony will be better, and frankly the fact he is rather silent on the filter issue is a big concern to me. However, here you have an incumbent Government intent on implementing a filter that: A) Will not stop the spread of child pornography, B) Does nothing that off the shelf or even free filters already do (such as the Netnanny that you mentioned) C) Can be circumvented in a matter of minutes, D) Will not be illegal to circumvent, E) Open for abuse by future governments/lobby groups to expand the scope of the filter. Those are the technological facts, now for my personal views: A) The minister has labelled people who oppose the filter as pro-paedophilia. Frankly I'm offended by that. B) Kev07 went into the election with an opt-out policy. Where is that now? Once he was elected it became a mandatory policy. So obviously the government has no problems in misleading the public to further it's own agenda. Do you think it wont do it again? C) As a minister of a portfolio, he at least should have an understanding of what he is dealing with. Yes he would have advisors, but if they are feeding him information either they are incompetent or he just has no clue. D) Stephen is quite happy to go on the offensive when someone or a company expresses a different view to his thoughts. Uneducated recent attacks on Google and iiNet are a prime example of this. E) Netnanny may have not been a huge success, but it was a free option for parents. Not a mandatory filter imposed without any choice to opt out. F) And the most important, it is my job as a parent to monitor what my children see on the interent. Mine and mine alone, not the governments. It is my responsibility to ensure filters, firewalls, virus scanners etc are installed. Frankly the media does not have to make anything up when he is quite happy spouting the ridiculous crap about portals like he did recently. He is more than adept at making himself look like a fool. All it does it make him an easier target.
umbria Jun 11, 2010 4:38 PM	Senator Conroy has held the line against the detractors of a full-fibre NBN, which is really pretty remarkable. First it meant cancelling both the coalition's OPEL project and rejecting all tenders for the technically inferior original 2007 NBN. In designing the FttH NBN he has maintained close collaboration with industry experts, and even showed the chutzpah to commission an implementation report that excluded any further consideration of alternative technologies, because he had already rejected them. Whatever else might be said about him, you've gotta admire his commitment to this.
Rhino Jun 11, 2010 8:26 PM	Despite advising my 2 year old it wasn't a good idea, she still stuffed the better part of a tissue up her nose till she couldn't get it out. The end result was a waste of time, was not very productive and a lot of tears.
Tom Brown Jun 12, 2010 11:48 AM	Thankyou Rhino for your response and I agree with umbria. My comments were not to justify Conroy or the government but to point out the weakness of so many of the critics arguments and behaviour. I was once told don't criticise unless you have something better to offer. Though I do not fulfil that, I am frustrated and offended at seeing so much bull. I agree that Conroy should be much better reserved and not drawn into replying to what is only heckling. I feel for his position, being faced continually by vociferous hecklers and hope to see him (or anyone in that position) rise above them. He has the responsibility to try to mould his and the governments proposal, a work in progress subject to change in consideration of mediation and consultation. I think your 2nd reply is very helpful You cannot tell people what to do, you can try to coerce them as you did, please use the broader usage of coerce. In the end though after Joe public gets burnt the first thing he does is look for someone to blame. If your daughter did that at child care then you would strongly want to know why and what the provider was doing so it did not happen again, of course if you never found out! Australians seem to understand this connection, do something! In fact most do not want to know the detail just make it work.
anonymous Jun 12, 2010 5:56 PM	Tom, the reason your comms minister has been attracting a remarkable amount of flak is because he is seeking to impose secret government censorship on false premises while permitting no real consultation at all, except with the lobby groups whose minds are as closed as his. When confronted by a dictatorial government that seems to be basing all its policy decisions on bad advice obtained only from yes-people (pink batts, BER rorts, super tax, ETS scams, etc, etc), it is reasonable and lawful, so far, for people to point out the problems. Your "just make it work" mantra sounds like a rework of "just think of the children" as an excuse for anything, despite the fact that Conboy's censorship will do very little in that area.