Economy and Abbott

As an update on yesterday's post The Australian today reported "Economy rides Abbott Victory." The evidence offered was an increase in share price and in consumer confidence.

It is a bit of a worry that this paper equates the economy to the share market.  It is about as bad as the way the retailers equate the economy with the sales in their stores.

The reality is the economy is much more than all these. 

But the value of shares on the stock market is a measure of expectation, not reality.  It is how much people expect the shares to be worth either because of what the companies will earn or (in a bubble) what they will sell for in the future.

If, as noted yesterday, the public has an assumption that the party of the bosses is better at managing the economy, then one would also expect the election of the party of the bosses to create a shift in the stock market.  The news that would justify a page one splash would be if this hadn't occurred.

Meanwhile, in commentary on Monday the chair of the BCA was arguing that a double dissolution should be avoided because it would be bad for business and consumer confidence.  This follows the business community's comments about the 'minority' government.

One really gets the feeling that the business community and its cheer squad at the Oz just regard democracy as a nasty little impediment to the capitalist state!

Better economic managers?

Excellent article by Ross Gittins today. 

He makes the point that voters react to the question of who are the better economic managers - Labor or Liberal - instinctively rather than rationally.

He writes in part;

I believe something similar operates in our unconscious attitudes towards the two main political parties. We see the Liberals - the party of the bosses - as the party best suited to run the country.
And that's it - the assumption surely the business people can run the economy better.  It matches up with reasons why not all citizens supported replacing autocracy with democracy - surely the lords and kings know better.

In the election Bob Hawke had a stump speech he used at launches and fundraisers where he made the claim for Labor as being the better economic managers - citing the reforms he and Keating made and the way the Rudd Government responded to the GFC.

To that I always add the Whitlam Government for the 25% tariff cut and the Trade Practices Act.

Both parties can screw up on anything.  Rational voters would think about what was being said.

There is no way that Abbott-Robb-Hockey are a strong economic management team.


Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est

Ziggy

Just a simple aide memoire for people who might need to write articles about Ziggy Switkowski.

His Wikipedia bio only mentions his Kodak and Optus careers in passing.  The CWU division of the CEPU provides a bit more.  In particular, that he was chairman and MD of Kodak (Australia) and was credited with the rescue of Kodak. Kodak was almost a basket case but the Labor Federal Government offered incentives. 

On 30 April 1996 he was announced as the new CEO of Optus, and resigned just over a year later on 13 June 1997.  My recollection - though journalists should check their newspaper archives - was that he fell out with the Board over his inability to develop a strategy.

After eighteen months as GMD of Telstra's Group Managing Director, Business & International Switkowski was appointed CEO of Telstra on 1 March 1999.  When his departure was announced in December 2004 the 7:30 Report noted that every time his departure had been rumoured the share price had picked up.

Despite reports - the latest being by Terry McCrann today - that Dr Switkowski has been "tapped" by Malcolom Turnbull to be Executive Chairman of NBN Co, Mr Turnbull has reminded everyone this is a Cabinet appointment.

It would, however, be an extraordinary appointment.  Mr Turnbull has repeatedly said the NBN Co Board needs experienced telco people, especially those who can roll out a network.

This just doesn't seem to be a description of John Howard's former nuclear power adviser.  His record as a CEO is;

• Turned Kodak around - temporarily - only after a large subsidy from the (Labor) Government.
• Could not deliver a strategy for Opyus.
• Had a disastrous record of $5 billion in acquisitions at Telstra and ended by contemplating - while still majority owned by the Government - buying the Nine Network.

One just wonders what he could do for NBN Co.

A nice description of the dilemma

There wasn't a lot to distinguish Rudd and Gillard. But this Canberra Times story neatly covers one part of it.

It said in part

The great project, first begun by Gough Whitlam and later rebuilt by Bob Hawke, is threatened as never before. In the long, barren decades of defeat after Labor lost office in 1948, Whitlam's critical insight was the party needed to reach out.

Advertisement

It could no longer simply rely on the workers' votes. It needed a broader base: cultural workers, environmentalists, and the middle class.
On Saturday, that alliance fell apart. Gillard had defined the fault line by identifying herself with the workers, rather than the progressive elements of the party. That was a desperate attempt to bolster her own internal support. But Kevin Rudd has also proved unable to reach out. Voters decided that he - and Labor - have been unable to present a plausible narrative for Australia's future.

This is a clear distinction. For Gillard the ALP is a labor party, for Rudd the ALP is a progressive party.

But those constituencies don't perfectly overlap.  The classic problem area is the battle between development and conservation - a Labor party wants jobs for loggers, a progressive party wants to save the environment.

The distinction spills over into the conceptions for the organisation of the party.

The distinction between Shorten and Albanese is a bit the same, though the evidence suggests each has a more nuanced view.  


Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est

The Dog Ate My Homework

The full glory of the Coalition filter "clusterf__k" is shown here.

http://youtu.be/wgxNvBJsTy4

Still begs the question of how it happened.  ZDnet and The Age are reporting that Malcolm Turnbull is effectively blaming party headquarters. 

But let's really look at the Coalition spokesman on Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.  What has he done in three years?

OK - he released a broadband policy - but it doesn't actually have a detailed business plan as he claims.  Nothing like it.  And it leaves as many questions left unanswered - the cost of the copper, the placement of nodes, the digital divide.

The "digital economy" policy he released really only talked about Government IT.  The only comment on real digital economies was to name Sweden, Denmark, Korea and Singapore as leading digital economies - all leaders in deploying fibre to the home.

He has criticised the Government for not completing anti-siphoning legislation - but not said what he will do.

His only comment on ABC and SBS fuinding is that their budgets will be cut if savings need to be made (Labor even exempted them from the efficiency dividend).

Cyber-safety he outsourced to a backbench committee and didn't read their policy.

It isn't an impressive record over three years.  Maybe he was just too busy appearing on QandA to do the real job of a shadow minister.

Coalition NBN fantasy land

The Coalition's commentary on broadband in this election campaign has been one giant fantasy land.

 

It has been led by the following false claims about Labor’s policy:

Claim: Labor’s NBN will cost taxpayers upwards of a $100 billion.[1]

Fact: Government equity for Labor’s NBN is $30.4 billion.  This is an investment that will generate a 7% return.[2] The Coalition plans to invest just 3% less for a network that can only guarantee one fourtieth the speed.

 

A full analysis of how the Coalition concocted this number and why it is wrong can be found here.

Claim: Labor’s NBN is going to result in a dramatic increase in broadband prices.[3]

Fact: Broadband plans available on the NBN are already available at comparable prices to existing plans for a better service. Wholesale prices will decrease in real and nominal terms. Average Revenue Per User will grow as consumers choose higher speed plans and use more data, but will not increase as a percentage of household wallets.

 

Claim: That if NBN Co was a listed company and hadn’t released its Corporate Plan the ASX would suspend it.

Fact: There is no requirement for companies to publish their corporate plan, there isn’t even a requirement for Government Business Enterprises to publish their Corporate Plans. The release of the annual Corporate Plan of NBN Co is part of the unprecedented level of transparency on this project. 

Claim: That NBN Co claim to have passed premises which they cannot connect.[4]

Fact: As NBN Co states the premises referred to can connect but require different processes. Specifically that includes the need to agree with a Body Corporate on the way to cable the specific building.

They have also made the following false claims about their own policy.

Claim: The Coalition will acquire ownership of the last mile copper, for no additional payment.[5]

Fact: In May 2011 Mr Turnbull berated the Government’s deal with Telstra saying “the inability of future governments to make use of parts of the copper network was a disastrous oversight that could potentially deliver billions of additional dollars to Telstra at the expense of taxpayers.”[6] Telstra has not backed this assertion. 

Claim: That the Coalition has built the cost of remediating copper and quite a bit of contingency into determining a $900 cost per premise for fibre to the node.[7]

Fact: Mr Turnbull invented a $3600 cost per premise for fibre to the premise and then claimed that on the basis of overseas examples his fibre to the node would cost 25% of that. There is no analysis of actual costs and not even a specification of how many nodes and what the actual fibre lop lengths will be.

Claim:  All contracts will be honoured.[8]

Fact: The Coalition policy says “The Coalition reserves the right to review and seek to vary any of those contracts in the light of the Coalition’s broadband policy.”[9]  There are 200,000 premises already passed and a further 1 million for which contractors are already at work; but Mr Turnbull’s policy only provides for completing 565,000 premises under Labor’s structure.[10] This is not consistent with the claim that contracts will be honoured.

Claim: More people will get fixed line broadband, and at higher speeds and less cost under the Coalition policy.[11]

Fact: The Coalition policy specifies that the same approach to fixed wireless and satellite will be taken as Labor.  There is no difference in the forecast premises to be addressed by fixed lines in either policy.

Claim: That the Coalition policy contained a detailed business plan.[12]

Fact: The Coalition policy document contained two pages of data on how their policy was costed - most of which didn't reconcile with other statements.  For example, ARPU grew at 9% not the 6% claimed. The CapEx and OpEx numbers were only provided to 2019 and did not reconcile with totals claimed to 2021.

---

[1] Sky News 23 August 2013

[2] NBN Co Corporate Plan 2012-15, and reconfirmed at Joint Committee on the NBN 19 April 2013

[3] Sky News 23 August 2013

[4] Malcolm Turnbull interviewed by Alan Jones 28 August 2013

[5] Sky News 23 August 2013

[6] http://www.2011.cebit.com.au/news/government/turnbull-slams-quigleys-telstra-deals.html

[7] Malcolm Turnbull interviewed by Tom Tilley on Triple-Js’ Hack 22 August 2013

[8] Malcolm Turnbull interviewed by Tom Tilley on Triple-Js’ Hack 22 August 2013

[9] Coalition policy page 12. 

[10] Coalition policy – background paper Page 31.

[11] Malcolm Turnbull interviewed on ABC South East NSW Mornings 5 August 2013
[12] Malcolm Turnbull interviewed by Tom Tilley on Triple-Js’ Hack 5 September2013

When is free speech not free speech?

In the last policy to be announced for the election - less than 40 hours from polling - the Coalition propose a new restriction on what people can say on-line.

It seems like these fine gentlemen propose an e-Safety Commissioner to be charged with the power to direct that content be taken down from social media websites. No court, no process, just a single content censor.

Go figure. Meanwhile their leader wants to roll back Racial Discrimination laws in the name of "free speech"

Mr Abbott said

"Any suggestion you can have free speech as long as it doesn't hurt people's feelings is ridiculous. If we are going to be a robust democracy, if we are going to be a strong civil society, if we are going to maintain that great spirit of inquiry, which is the spark that has made our civilisation so strong, then we've got to allow people to say things that are unsayable in polite company."

It is Wild West Week!

It is currently "Wild West Week" on Masterchef Australia. It seems this has inspired some others from WA to get in on the act.

iiNet regulatory boss Steve Dalby decided it was a good day to tell the management of NBN Co exactly what he thought of them....or at least to tell the AFR's David Ramli.

He is reported to have said;

If they don’t get their shit together, we will just happily go about our business and do our own thing.  NBN Co’s attitude is very dictatorial, it’s very public service and it’s very ‘take it or leave it’. It’s just surprising they have this attitude when you can actually leave it.

NBN Co needs us more than we need them and that is not portrayed in any way by their attitude. If nobody signs their [wholesale broadband agreement] and nobody agrees with their SAU and they have no success as a business then they’re f---ed.

He certainly bested former communications minister Stephen Conroy who had only dropped the f-bomb at the National Press Club in December 2011, and a "shit" when he realised he was late for Question Time at a press conference on the media reforms in March 2013.  Dalby apparently managed both in the one on the record interview.

Of course, most of this is bluster - the typical stuff of which all negotiations are made.  But it is also a bit delusional.  NBN Co just needs one service provider to call iiNet's bluff.  It will be a very hard "access strike" to pull off.  And as the figures on take-up provided to Senate Estimates in May show take-up is faster in the areas being switched on now.  Not marketing to these customers doesn't sound like a good idea.

The other question is exactly what iiNet means by "do their own thing".  Apart from the access networks they bought with Transact iiNet has never done its own thing - it has used Telstra's copper lines. 

There is a rule in the strategy business that if you want to make a threat - make it a credible one.

There were plenty of other ways for iiNet to make its pre-emptive strike about a document to be released by the ACCC that day (and it now has been).

Maybe Steve was just competing with his boss in a "most outrageous claim of the week" competition. 

In a piece in the AFR that deserves a blog post all of its own, Malone was said to have called for [new Minister] Mr Albanese to allow NBN Co to run fibre optic cabling to the basement of apartment buildings instead of connecting every single unit – a move the Coalition has already pledged to do if it wins power. “That’s a change they can make literally overnight and it would mean you could commit to putting 15-to-20 per cent of Australians onto the NBN next year,” he apparently said.

Given that NBN Co will complete the rollout to 12 million premises by 2021, and that it is in 2013 at 200,000 it is already planning to do about 12.5% per year. 

Some 30% of premises are MDUs, but they are not all in clusters so you still have to do most of the fibre rollout work for the whole area in which the MDU sits.  And even if you decide only to roll the fibre to the MDUs, you still need to do the full design work for the whole area in which the MDU sits.

But also the average size of MDUs is eight units.  As outlined at the JCNBN the issue is that once you realise that the project savings aren't that great.  And if we don't take fibre to the unit now...when do we?  The argument of "let them use copper" is a bit like arguing that all the workmen's cottages (now called terrace houses) built in the 19th century should never have been connected to electricity - after all they had gas, and no internal wiring.

Telco policy discussion has never been renowned for consistency or logic of argument.  Once upon a time though the journalist involved might have thought to challenge the comment - not merely repeat it because it suited the masthead's editorial line. 

(That said - Steve is just as right to push the interests of his company as NBN Co is in acting in the interests of its shareholders (us), Mike is right to suggest the company should always be pushed by the shareholders to get the best outcome, and David is right to want to get column inches under his byline.  But unfortunately all of this doesn't result in considered policy analysis.)

Telcos and trust

It has been an interesting time in telco land recently.  It is impossible not to notice that telcos are rediscovering consumer trust as an important lever in delivering financial results.

One can see this in the extent to which customer service features in recent presentations. Improving customer satisfaction was the first of the four strategies listed by Telstra in its Investor Day presentation in October.

Optus' Kevin Russell titled his recent AICC adress Transforming Customer Experience.  In that speech he said " Standards of service in Australia relative to standards of service that I'd seen change in the UK, just seem to, in my view, have gone backwards."

Optus also released research  on Customer Service: Perceptions & Expectations. The research showed negative advocacy scores for the telco sector - that is assumed to be a measure similar to the Net Promoter Score.

Vodafone's Bill Morrow was more direct in comments reported by The Australian.  He said "2013 is all about trying to earn back trust.."  He added "Mr Morrow's presentation outlined a journey for Vodafone from "low trust" in 2011 to "most trusted" by the end of the year." 

All these comments came to mind when today I read an item from the UK about Sainsbury becoming an MVNO.  In part the report read:

Called Mobile by Sainsbury's, the service is due to launch this summer and aims to remove what it claims is the stress of choosing a suitable mobile tariff.

"Our customers trust us to provide top quality products and service at fair prices, and Mobile by Sainsbury's feels like a natural extension of our brand as well as a great way to reward our customers," said Luke Jensen, group development director at Sainsbury's, in a statement.

There is that word "trust" again. 

Students of marketing, and more specifically the real science of markets that is economics, know how important brand and trust are in the context of markets with assymetric information.

The strategy in the Sainsbury case is to try to take the brand value from retail to mobile, in a belief that the brand value can withstand the negative effect of the telcos.

The practical reality seems to be from telcos however that the negative effect of the mobile ecosystem will damage any brand.

There is an alternative route for telcos which is to reduce the extent of the information assymetry. 

(Technically I think there are three responses to the market for lemons. The first is to remove the information assymetry.  The second is to provide a warranty against the negative outcomes.  The third is building trust as a supplier.  Clearly both the first two can be used as part of building the third.)

One of the most important questions is whether this problem really can be solved by each telco alone or whether there is an over-arching issue that requires co-operation.  I touched on this in a TJA article in 2010.  I also addressed the issue of why competition doesn't necessarily result in improved customer service in a submission to the ACMA.

The signs are there that the three mobile network owners in Australia understand the dimension of the problem.  If they think the value in the response is only in a battle for market share then there will be no co-operative action.  But if they recognise that the outcome can be increasing the perceived value of their product there might be a different approach.

 

Ministers for Communications

The swearing in today of Anthony Albanese as Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy saw some tweeting about the longevity of Senator Conroy and contrasting it with the churn in the portfolio in the Hawke Government.

So I thought I'd share my table of Ministers for Communication since Federation. 

As "postal, telegraphic and other like services" are a Federal responsibility under the constitution the Post-Master General was a portfolio from the very start.

The initial ministries (1.1.1901- 12.7.1915) were constituted of PM, Minister for External Affairs, Minister for Home Affairs, Treasurer, Minister for Trade and Customs, Minister for Defence, Postmaster-General, Vice-President of the Executive-Council, Minister (without portfolio).  The Minister with responsibility for posts and telegraphs is therefore one of six that could have a list of Ministers since Federation.

 

Anthony Albanese is not the first Deputy Prime Minister to be the communications minister.  Lance Barnard was both in the two man Whitlam ministry from 5 to 19 December 1972.  Lionel Bowen was Post-Master General under Whitlam and subsequently served as DPM under Hawke.

 

John McEwen was the first Minister to be commissioned as Deputy Prime Minister in the Gorton Ministry on 10.1.1968.  Previously it was used unofficially for the second highest ranking Minister. (but none of them were the Postmaster General).

 

The full list is:

 

Ministry	Dates	Minister	Dates
		Postmaster-General
Barton Ministry (Protectionist)	1.1.1901 – 24.9.1903	Forrest, J	1.1.1901-17.1.1901
		Drake, Senator JG	5.2.1901-10.8.1903
		Fysh, PO	10.8.1903 -24.9.1903
Deakin Ministry (Protectionist)	24.9.1903 – 27.4.1904	Fysh, PO	24.9.1903 – 27.4.1904
Watson Ministry (ALP)	27.4.1904 – 17.8.1904	Mahon, H	27.4.1904 – 17.8.1904
Reid–McLean Ministry (Free Trade – Protectionist Coalition)	18.8.1904 – 5.7.1905	Smith, S (FT)	18.8.1904 – 5.7.1905
Deakin Ministry (Protectionist)	5.7.1905 – 13.11.1908	Chapman, A	5.7.1905-30.7.1907
		Mauger, S	30.7.1907-13.11.1908
Fisher Ministry (ALP)	13.11.1908 – 2.6.1909	Thomas, J	13.11.1908 – 2.6.1909
Deakin Ministry (Protectionist – Free Trade – Tariff Reform Coalition)	2.6.1909 – 29.4.1910	Quick, J (PROT)	2.6.1909 – 29.4.1910
Fisher Ministry (ALP)	29.4.1910 – 24.6.1913	Thomas, J	29.4.1910-14.10.1911
		Frazer, CE	14.10.1911-24.6.1913
Cook Ministry (LIB)	24.6.1913 – 17.9.1914	Wynne, A	24.6.1913 – 17.9.1914
Fisher Ministry (ALP)	17.9.1914 – 27.10.1915	Spence, WG	17.9.1914 – 27.10.1915
Hughes Ministry (ALP)	27.10.1915 – 14.11.1916	Webster, W	27.10.1915 – 14.11.1916
Hughes Ministry (National Labour)	14.11.1916 – 17.2.1917	Webster, W	14.11.1916 – 17.2.1917
Hughes Ministry (Nationalist)	17.2.1917 – 10.1.1918	Webster, W	17.2.1917 – 10.1.1918
Hughes Ministry (Nationalist)	10.1.1918 – 9.2.1923	Webster, W	10.1.1918-3.2.1920
		Wise, GH	4.2.1920 – 21.12.1921
		Poynton, A	21.12.1921 – 5.2.1923
Bruce–Page Ministry (Nationalist – CP Coalition)	9.2.1923 – 22.10.1929	Gibson, WG (CP)	9.2.1923 – 22.10.1929
Scullin Ministry (ALP)	22.10.1929 – 6.1.1932	Lyons, JA	22.10.1929 – 4.2.1931
		Green, AE	4.2.1931-6.1.1932
Lyons Ministry (UAP)	6.1.1932 – 9.11.1934	Fenton, JE	6.1.1932-13.10.1932
		Parkhill, RA	13.10.1932 – 12.10.1934
		McLachlan, Senator AJ	12.10.1934 – 9.11.1934
Lyons Ministry (UAP–CP Coalition)	9.11.1934 – 7.11.1938	McLachlan, Senator AJ	9.11.1934 – 7.11.1938
Lyons Ministry (UAP–CP Coalition)	7.11.1938 – 7.4.1939	Cameron, AG (CP)	7.11.1938 – 7.4.1939
Page Ministry (CP–UAP Coalition)	7.4.1939 – 26.4.1939	Cameron, AG (CP)	7.4.1939 – 26.4.1939
Menzies Ministry (UAP)	26.4.1939 – 14.3.1940	Harrison, EJ	26.4.1939 – 14.3.1940
Menzies Ministry (UAP–CP Coalition)	14.3.1940 – 28.10.1940	Thorby, HVC (CP)	14.3.1940 – 28.10.1940
Menzies Ministry (UAP–CP Coalition)	28.10.1940 – 29.8.1941	McLeay, Senator G	28.10.1940-26.6.1941
		Collins, TJ (CP)	26.6.1941-29.8.1941
Fadden Ministry (UAP–CP Coalition)	29.8.1941 – 7.10.1941	Collins, TJ (CP)	29.8.1941 – 7.10.1941
Curtin Ministry (ALP)	7.10.1941 – 21.9.1943	Ashley, Senator WP	7.10.1941 – 21.9.1943
Curtin Ministry (ALP)	21.9.1943 – 6.7.1945	Ashley, WP (SENATOR?)	21.9.1943 – 6.7.1945
Forde Ministry (ALP)	6.7.1945 – 13.7.1945	Cameron, Senator D	6.7.1945 – 13.7.1945
Chifley Ministry (ALP)	13.7.1945 – 1.11.1946	Cameron, Senator D	13.7.1945 – 1.11.1946
Chifley Ministry (ALP)	1.11.1946 – 19.12.1949	Cameron, Senator D	1.11.1946 – 19.12.1949
Menzies Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	19.12.1949 – 11.5.1951	Anthony, HL (CP)	19.12.1949 – 11.5.1951
Menzies Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	11.5.1951 – 11.1.1956	Anthony, HL (CP)	11.5.1951 – 11.1.1956
Menzies Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	11.1.1956 – 10.12.1958	Davidson, CW (CP)	11.1.1956 – 10.12.1958
Menzies Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	10.12.1958 – 18.12.1963	Davidson, CW (CP)	10.12.1958 – 18.12.1963
Menzies Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	18.12.1963 – 26.1.1966	Hulme, AS	18.12.1963 – 26.1.1966
Holt Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	26.1.1966 – 14.12.1966	Hulme, AS	26.1.1966 – 14.12.1966
Holt Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	14.12.1966 – 19.12.1967	Hulme, AS	14.12.1966 – 19.12.1967
McEwen Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	19.12.1967 – 10.1.1968	Hulme, AS	19.12.1967 – 10.1.1968
Gorton Ministry (LIB-CP Coalition)	10.1.1968 – 28.2.1968	Hulme, AS	10.1.1968 – 28.2.1968
Gorton Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	28.2.1968 – 12.11.1969	Hulme, AS	28.2.1968 – 12.11.1969
Gorton Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	12.11.1969 – 10.3.1971	Hulme, AS	12.11.1969 – 10.3.1971
McMahon Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	10.3.1971 – 5.12.1972	Hulme, AS	10.3.1971 – 5.12.1972
Whitlam Ministry (ALP)	5.12.1972 – 19.12.1972	Barnard, LH	5.12.1972 – 19.12.1972
Whitlam Ministry (ALP)	19.12.1972 – 12.6.1974	Bowen, LF	19.12.1972 – 12.6.1974
Whitlam Ministry (ALP)	12.6.1974 – 11.11.1975	Bishop, Senator R	12.6.1974 – 11.11.1975
Fraser Ministry (LIB–NCP Coalition)	11.11.1975 – 22.12.1975	Nixon, PJ (NCP)	11.11.1975 – 22.12.1975
		Minister for Post and Telecommunications
Fraser Ministry (LIB–NCP Coalition)	22.12.1975 – 20.12.1977	Garland, RV	22.12.1975 – 6.2.1976
		Robinson, EL	6.2.1976 - 20.12.1977
Fraser Ministry (LIB–NCP Coalition)	20.12.1977 – 3.11.1980	Staley, AA	20.12.1977 – 3.11.1980
		Minister for Communications
Fraser Ministry (LIB–NCP Coalition)	3.11.1980 – 7.5.1982	Sinclair, IMcC (NCP)	3.11.1980 – 7.5.1982
Fraser Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	7.5.1982 – 11.3.1983	Brown, NA	7.5.1982 – 11.3.1983
Hawke Ministry (ALP)	11.3.1983 – 13.12.1984	Duffy, MJ	11.3.1983 – 13.12.1984
Hawke Ministry (ALP)	13.12.1984 – 24.7.1987	Duffy, MJ	13.12.1984 – 24.7.1987
		Minister for Transport and Communications
Hawke Ministry (ALP)	24.7.1987 – 4.4.1990	Evans, Senator GJ	24.7.1987 – 2.9.1988
		Willis, R	2.9.1988- 4.4.1990
Hawke Ministry (ALP)	4.4.1990 – 20.12.1991	Beazley, KC	4.4.1990 – 9.12.1991
		Kerin, JC	9.12.1991- 20.12.1991
Keating Ministry (ALP)	20.12.1991 – 27.12.1991	Kerin, JC	20.12.1991 – 27.12.1991
Keating Ministry (ALP)	27.12.1991 – 24.3.1993	Richardson, Senator GF	27.12.1991 – 18.5.1992
		Collins, Senator RL	27.5.1992 - 24.3.1993
Keating Ministry (ALP)	24.3.1993 – 11.3.1996	Collins, Senator RL	24.3.1993  - 23.12.1993
		Minister for Communications
		Lee, MJ	23.12.1993 – 30.1.1994
		Minister for Communications and the Arts
		Lee, MJ	30.1.1994 - 11.3.1996
Howard Ministry (LIB–NPA Coalition)	11.3.1996 – 21.10.1998	Alston, Senator RKR	11.3.1996 - 9.10.1997
		Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts
		Alston, Senator RKR	9.10.1997 - 21.10.1998
		Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
Howard Ministry (LIB–NPA Coalition)	21.10.1998 – 26.11.2001	Alston, Senator RKR	21.10.1998 – 26.11.2001
Howard Ministry (LIB - NPA* Coalition)	26.11.2001 - 26.10.2004	Alston, Senator RKR	26.11.2001  - 7.10.2003
		Williams, DR	7.10.2003 - 18.7.2004
		Coonan, Senator HL	18.7.2004 - 26.10.2004
Howard Ministry (LIB-NP Coalition)	26.10.2004 - 3.12.2007	Coonan, Senator HL	26.10.2004 - 3.12.2007
		Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Rudd Ministry (Labor)	3.12.07 – 24.06.10	Conroy, Senator SM	3.12.07 – 24.06.10
Gillard Ministry (Labor)	24.06.10 – 28.06.10	Conroy, Senator SM	24.06.10 – 28.06.10
Gillard Ministry (Labor)	28.06.10 – 14.9.2010	Conroy, Senator SM	28.06.10 – 14.9.2010
Gillard Ministry (Labor)	14.9.2010 – 28.06.13	Conroy, Senator SM	14.9.2010 – 28.06.13
Rudd Ministry (Labor)	28.06.13 – 1.07.13	Conroy, Senator SM	28.06.13 – 1.07.13
Rudd Ministry (Labor)	1.07.13 -	Albanese, AN  (Deputy Prime Minister)	1.07.13

Source: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:handbook%2Fnewhandbook%2F2011-10-13%2F0063

 

There are a few additional quirks as follows:

1. Minister for the Media 12.6.1974 – 11.11.1975 (check Administrative Orders for Responsibilities)

Minister for the Media
12.6.1974 to 6.6.1975	McClelland, Senator D
from 6.6.1975 to 11.11.1975	Cass, MH

2. In 1982 the title seems to have undertaken a very minor change from “Communication” to “Communications”
   
3. During the Hawke super-ministry of Transport and Communications there was a period with a junior Minister for Telecommunications

Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support
2.9.1988 – 28.3.1989	Punch, GF
6.4.1989 - 4.4.1990	Kelly, RJ

4. During the Howard Ministry, Senator Ian Campbell was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts from 21.10.1998 - 26.11.2001, (I had recollection that Chris Pyne did it later but it does’t appear in the APH list)
5. During the Rudd Ministry from 1.07.13 there were in addition
               Senator Kate Lundy, Minister Assisting for the Digital Economy
               Sharon Bird, Minister for Regional Communications
               Ed Husic, Parliamentary Secretary for Broadband