Packer farewell, Eddie's conflicts and Rupert

3. Kerry Packer's lack of respect for women

By Stephen Mayne

Amid all the excessive hoopla about Kerry Packer since his death on Boxing Day, an on-going theme throughout has been the dominance of colourful men pontificating on his life and the lack of any meaningful contribution from women. The guest list on Friday was very much a roll call of powerful blokes, accompanied by their partners.

Annette Sharp is one of the few women to have stepped up to take a shot. In yesterday's Sun-Herald Diary column, the former Channel Nine publicist went into some detail about the grief being suffered by Packer's long-time mistress of 23 years, Julie Trethowan, who is struggling along with about $15 million in donated assets for her troubles.

Such generosity might be explained by this nugget which Sharp yesterday added to the public record:

It is likely that she [Trethowan] is also aware of the lonely death of 1970s late-night Channel Nine movie hostess Karol Lopez. Lopez, a beautiful black Portugese American model and dancer, was rumoured to have been Kerry Packer's lady friend during the 1970s. In 1991 Lopez committed suicide in her Thyra Road, Palm Beach, bathtub, leaving an eight page suicide note detailing her relationship with Packer. At the time Mona Vale police said the note also made reference to recent financial hardship that had left her depressed.

A Crikey reader familiar with Sydney's northern beaches emailed through a similar story in January:

The current mistress Julie Trethowan was only one of a line, of course – though probably the longest stayer. I recall trying to pick up a gorgeous, apparently single, black girl at a party once in the late 1970s or early 1980s only to be told "my boyfriend wouldn't like it." When pressed she confided the boyfriend was Kerry Packer.

Some former Packer associates now in the Murdoch camp have dropped other revealing nuggets into the public arena in recent days. Richard Zachariah produced an interesting column in The Australian last week in which he noted that Maggie Tabberer, long-time fashion editor of The Australian Women's Weekly, was "one of the few women whom Packer respected."

Indeed, it is fair to say that not respecting women has long been a Packer family trait. Whilst Piers Akerman was wrong to describe KP as "Australia's principal p*rnographer" in a notorious 1997 column, he has made plenty of money over the years through soft-p*rn publications.

Phillip Adams also opened up in The Australian Magazine on Saturday when he wrote the following:

He (KP) didn't like Paul Cox's Lonely Hearts either, preferring Kitty and the Bagman, a film about the Sydney madam Tilly Devine. His dad had been one of her regulars. Kerry roared with laughter at the memory of Sir Frank climbing over the galvo roofs during police raids, trying to pull his pants up.

The public record has noted that when it came to frequenting such establishments, it was a case of "like father, like son." Colleagues at The Daily Telegraph have told me of the time Rupert Murdoch regaled news conference with tales of Kerry's energetic indulgences in this field of endeavour.

Another journalist retails the story of Kerry turning to a friend of his at a dinner and saying, "So, son, do you like f*cking?" Is this really the sort of man we should be feting as a legend?

Where are Australia's feminists in this debate? You won't see them tackling the issue in any ACP publications but surely Fairfax and News Ltd columnists will have a crack once the dust has settled. And what about a female politician having the courage to get up and say something in one of our Parliaments? Too afraid of the backlash from a still awesomely powerful media empire, are we?

4. Has KP fire-proofed the empire from the Scientologists?

By Stephen Mayne

Crikey has long-remarked that Kerry Packer treated his son poorly by not paying him a salary for his efforts at PBL and Consolidated Press. There he was, happy to splash tens of millions on all sorts of indulgences, but the kid had to prove his worthiness by working for nothing.

James Packer admitted as much in his interview with Sunday. When asked about his own views on gambling, he said: "I've never had the means to participate in it the way that dad did."

In some respects it is surprising that KP didn't occasionally sling his son a few million and say, "have a flutter". After all, they did loads of things together, some a little controversial, above and beyond business and polo.

Whilst control of the $7 billion fortune has now passed to James, Crikey hears that he doesn't have a completely free hand to spend it how he sees fit. For instance, when KP heard his son had become entangled with Scientology a few years ago, he was alarmed. He asked him about Scientology - what is it, how does it work, what does it stand for, why are you in it?

KP is said to have been so perturbed by the answers, that he asked a confidante to conduct an inquiry into Scientology. He was alarmed to learn that converts became "slaves" of the organisation and also handed over all their worldly goods to serve the worldwide interests of the "church". While James has been publicly elevated as the controller of the family fortune, the KP will does leave a sort of executive committee in place to help run the Packer empire within the limitations prescribed.

Finally, the decision to have two executors of the estate, Lloyd Williams and David Gonski, perhaps reflects the failing health of the Crown Casino founder who was too ill to be interviewed for the Channel Nine documentary.

If it was just a case of handing over the keys and saying "good luck", why would KP have selected someone as smart as Gonski to guide the inheritance given that he is the master of complex financial structuring? Don't be at all surprised if locking out the Scientologists is just one of many restrictions placed on James into the future.

5. Stephen Mayne's memorial service snippets

Which pollies didn't turn up? Did anyone else notice the row of 14 empty seats at the Kerry Packer memorial service which appeared to be where most of the politicians were congregated? Sure, the taxpayer funding of such an event was always controversial, but were there really a number of political figures who decided it was better to stay away? There was still five incumbent premiers, the Howards, Beazleys, Hawkes, Kennetts, Wrans, Greiners, Carrs, Costellos, Turnbulls and several others, but the empty seats would suggest it does appear that some others chose not to front. If KP was still alive, it is unlikely that invited political figures would stay away from a special Packer event as they would have been too afraid of his reaction. NSW Premier Morris Iemma made a point of not offering a state funeral, which is when John Howard quickly leapt forward to fill the void. James Packer's comment that his father never forgot a favour means that the PM's generosity with our money has no doubt accumulated more brownie points for electoral endorsement in the future.

Where was Rupert? The other really obvious name missing from the action on Friday was Rupert Murdoch. He's met Kerry in countless hotel rooms, on yachts, at formal occasions and informal meetings. He even hired a couple of bouncers to beat Kerry up in the 1960s. For all the sparring, wheeling and dealing over the years, surely Rupert could have made the trip. He's been back for two funerals over the past seven years – his first wife and his oldest sister. Sure, Rupert's veteran Australian bag carrier Ken Cowley was there, but sending Lachlan Murdoch seemed rather odd given that it was only three months back that Lachlan stuck a dagger into James Packer's heart with those revelations about sooking in his kitchen after One-tel collapsed.

Dick Pratt, Graeme Samuel and David Flint. The Packer family has long prided itself on managing governments and regulators to their advantage, so it was no surprise to see ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel, an important man in any future media merger deliberations, strolling into the Opera House on Friday. But it's unlikely Samuel would have exchanged pleasantries with fellow attendee Dick Pratt, who is facing cartel allegations in the Federal Court. However, former regulators do quickly find themselves falling off the Packer VIP list. Then Australian Broadcasting Authority chairman David Flint was on the smaller 800-strong guest list for the $10 million wedding of James Packer and Jodie Meares in 1999, but he was nowhere to be seen on Friday.

Meanwhile, Crikey subscribers have noted three significant absences: Don Burke, John Singleton and John Laws. Was Singo too morose and worried about mortality to turn up? And why did Caroline, but not John Laws, attend? Was Laws unwilling to attend an event featuring his rival Alan Jones? And where was Don Burke?

16. Eddie Everywhere admits to blatant conflict of interest

By Stephen Mayne

The Bulletin's interview with Eddie McGuire last week included this fascinating admission from the new Channel Nine CEO who intends remaining as Collingwood President, at least until the end of 2006:

One of the things that I've been very proud of is that most of the sponsors of The Footy Show over the first five years have been procured by me. Have a look at them. They were all sponsors that were with Collingwood and changed to The Footy Show.

The wording might be clumsy in that Eddie perhaps means the big advertisers stayed with Collingwood and also sponsored The Footy Show, but that quote reads like Eddie is gloating that he pushed sponsors away from Collingwood to Channel Nine.

Err, isn't that yet another raging example of conflict of interest? One not-for-profit organisation pays Eddie nothing to be President and another ferociously commercial operation reportedly pays him $5 million a year to bring in viewers and advertisers.

Eddie will no doubt retort that he's boosted sponsorship revenue at Collingwood and turned the finances. Indeed, he's on the record saying that without the Collingwood turnaround he would never have landed the Nine CEO gig.

Australia's pay disclosure laws allow the likes of on-screen stars, shock jocks and fund managers to keep their pay packets private because, even if Eddie was paid $20 million a year, annual reports only require a list of the five highest paid "executives" to be revealed and these are narrowly defined.

To get to the heart of Eddie's conflicts of interest, we would need to know the exact nature of his Nine contract and the benefits he was able to confer on sponsors at Collingwood.

If a Collingwood sponsor, which also poured money into The Footy Show, was given benefits such as a disaproportionately large number of positions at the President's lunch or in corporate boxes, then there are serious concerns, especially if Eddie had some form of profit-share at Channel Nine based on advertising revenue.

Given that he's gloating about usurping the role of Nine's Melbourne sales department, where his sister Brigette works, this would not be a surprise as Eddie's long-time manager, Geoff Brown, was always adept at maximising his client's position during contract negotiations.

Besides, why would Eddie even bother taking an interest in The Footy Show's advertising revenue, if he didn't share in the upside? These are quite serious issues that deserve answers.

25. The dangers of a carbon tax

By Stephen Mayne

Our story last week about the power, influence and connections of the fossil fuels industry has sparked a number of interesting responses, including several challenges to the Greenpeace line that Australia's fossil fuel industries receive many billions a year in taxpayer subsidies.

Take the NSW mining industry, which is about 80% coal, for example. Apart from the argument about subsidised power to aluminium smelters, the industry claims it doesn't receive any subsidies. Half the pre-tax profit goes to the state government, another quarter to the Feds and this came to around $1.2 billion last year in NSW alone.

On the question of a carbon tax, it isn't so much what the coal industry could sustain (80% exported), but rather what the Australian economy could sustain. Demand for energy is highly inelastic, which is why fuel excises are so lucrative for government. Further taxing coal will put up the price of energy, which will be both inflationary and drive energy intensive industry offshore. Cheap energy is one of Australia's few comparative advantages. It's a brave and tough call to cut it loose. That's what governments globally are realising about climate change policy – talk is cheap, but action is not.

But why not cut the volume-related royalties and replace them with a carbon tax to really get the market incentives moving in favour of lower emissions without crippling the overall industry? Gas is already receiving preferential tax treatment, so why not just make this a little more pronounced in some rebalancing that's revenue neutral.

Then there is this conspiracy of influence that Four Corners (check out Andrew Bolt's de-bunking here) and Crikey have separately raised. The industry laughs at this suggestion and merely points out that any large wealth-generating industry has influence and governments ignore them at their peril.

Many in the mining industry profess to support a drive to a lower carbon energy supply in Australia, but rail against any form of carbon tax unless it is a truly global system. China is tipped to build 550 new coal-fired power stations in the next decade to help drag a billion people out of poverty. It is, indeed, a tricky morality. You need to create wealth to help deliver the solutions.

Finally, the NSW Parliament has just released this background paper on climate change. It's one of the best you'll read as a genuine, articulate, impartial summary of the science behind the arguments about climate change.

Copyright © 2024 The Mayne Report. All rights reserved

• share
  Share
  • 
    Facebook
  • 
    Twitter
  • email
    Email
  • print
    Print
  • link
    Copy Link
  • cancel
    Cancel