One distraction following the Gillard Government's Budget has been the dispute over the free set-top box scheme. For $308 million it aims to provide set-top boxes for aged pensioners, people on disabilities and war veterans at a cost of $350 per person/unit. The context is the coming national switch to digital television. There has been a trial over the past 18 months.
The Opposition says it is wasteful, more expensive than similar provision by the private sector, and likely to be subject to mistakes in installation.
Retailer Gerry Harvey was quoted as saying that he could provide set-top boxes for half the price. Various small-businessmen raised issues similar to the failed home insulation scheme in terms of capacity, training and rorting. The Master Electricians Association complained about the possibility that the scheme will attract fly-by-night operators, which in turn offended some tradespeople.
Some disgruntled clients of the trial want a new digital television instead of a set-top box.
It has become a cavalcade of the disgruntled, the sort that a government doesn't want following a budget, particularly with a program that should be a feel-good scheme.
Julia Gillard and Steven Conroy, the Minister for Communications, have responded furiously. They point to the laudable general goals of increasing access to the latest developments in communication, to the many poor and vulnerable beneficiaries, and to the simplistic view of the program that has been put about by its critics.
The program is not apparently just about set-top boxes, but includes aerials, cabling and after-installation service. The set-top boxes themselves are often not off-the-shelf models, but are specialised units for use by people with disabilities.
This tale tells us a lot about politics and policy-making.
It has been another win for the Opposition, which has employed two successful strategies.
The first has been to link this program to the home insulation saga and the school buildings economic stimulus controversy, both of which contributed to the downfall of Kevin Rudd and the poor Labor performance at the last federal election. The second has been to link the program to the Opposition's tried and true themes of waste, inefficiency and poor implementation.
Failed implementation has been one of the major weaknesses of the Rudd and Gillard governments. It has fuelled public perception that it cannot deliver. This is an unfair judgment in some cases; the final word on the school buildings program will probably be much more favourable to the Government.
What this set-top box issue