Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Senator Stephen Conroy Stoked

Jump to new
Garpal Gumnut

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel
Joined
2 January 2006
Posts
13,782
Reactions
10,547
It would appear that Communications Minister in the Labor Government Senator Stephen Conroy had been having some snow time in Colorado with Kerry Stokes, owner of Channel 7, one month prior to giving the TV Channels a tax free break of $250 million in January.

They met in Beaver Creek. Modesty prohibits me from disclosing the exact location.

It makes the job he gave Mike Kaiser seem like chicken feed. That was only $450,000 p.a.

COMMUNICATIONS Minister Stephen Conroy held a secret meeting and went snow-skiing with Seven's billionaire owner Kerry Stokes at a ritzy American resort only weeks before handing over a $250 million gift to Australia's free-to-air TV networks.
Click to expand...

Mr Stokes, through a spokesman, said he had "thoroughly enjoyed" skiing with Senator Conroy.
Click to expand...

http://www.news.com.au/national/min...inner-with-mogul/story-e6frfkw9-1225830083475

gg
 
And we wonder why the media is such an uncritical lapdog these days. You are much less likely to bite when your bottom line is becoming more and more dependant on the hand that feeds you.

I thought that under Howard the lack of transparency and accountability and the absence of any meaningful scrutiny was bad but these clowns have taken it to the next level. People complain that Labour is full of lefties but to me they seem as much or even more conservative in a lot of areas than Howard ever was.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
It would appear that Communications Minister in the Labor Government Senator Stephen Conroy had been having some snow time in Colorado with Kerry Stokes, owner of Channel 7, one month prior to giving the TV Channels a tax free break of $250 million in January.
Click to expand...

This was a clever move. Conroy is not bright, but he is cunning as a sewer rat. To have the commercial channels on side in a election year is worth the money. However Labor should not be using taxpayers money to buy favours.

The Coalition cannot criticise too much without driving the stations further off side. Rudd hamming it up on "Sunrise" shows he prefers this sort of rubbish to a program like the ABC "Insiders" where he might have to field serious questions.
 
Calliope said:
This was a clever move. Conroy is not bright, but he is cunning as a sewer rat. To have the commercial channels on side in a election year is worth the money. However Labor should not be using taxpayers money to buy favours.

The Coalition cannot criticise too much without driving the stations further off side. Rudd hamming it up on "Sunrise" shows he prefers this sort of rubbish to a program like the ABC "Insiders" where he might have to field serious questions.
Click to expand...

Yes having Channel 7 paid off would be an asset to the ALP.

It will be an uphill battle for Abbott to win against the ABC, Fairfax Media, Newscorp and Channel 7, 9 and 10.

Newscorp seem more even over the last few weeks though.

Conroy is one smart dude.

Buying favours with our money is what politicians do, Howard did it with Jones and Laws, its just a bit blatant in this case.

gg
 
Well radio is lining up with their hand out too now. Though I don't like their chances. I don't think radio is as influential a medium as tv is nowdays and Conroy will just shrug them off.

I found it amusing that it has been presented in the guise of protecting local content.
The Australian said:
Announcing the TV rebate last week, Senator Conroy said the windfall was intended to "protect Australian content on commercial television".

He said the rebate to the commercial TV networks recognised the level of operational licence fees in Australia compared with other countries, and the new technology and commercial challenges facing the sector, including the switch to digital.

But critics attacked the rebate scheme for not obliging the networks to spend any of the money on local programs.

"It did look a little odd in that there were licence fee reductions without any local content or other ties attached," Mr McCarthy said.
Click to expand...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-match-tv-rebate/story-e6frg996-1225830259062

It just seems so blatant to me, not sure how others see it. You'd expect this sort of thing in some pseudo democracy like Malaysia or Fiji.
 
Isnt it 250mil for all free to air stations, not just channel 7?

As they mentioned on Offsiders the other morning, the other networks have been rather quiet on this one!! (I wonder why?) ..
 
What's going on here? Seven's share of the 250M must have bought a lot of goodwill for Labor.

Seven retracts Rann affair claim
February 15, 2010 - 12:32PM
Network Seven has retracted its claim that a former parliamentary waitress had a sexual relationship with South Australian Premier Mike Rann.

During its Sunday Night program, Channel Seven acknowledged Mr Rann's denial of Michelle Chantelois's claim made in November last year.

"Seven Network acknowledges the Premier of South Australia's statement in response to its Sunday Night program last year, which featured an interview with Michelle Chantelois and in particular his denial that he engaged in sexual intercourse with Ms Chantelois," Seven said.

"Seven regrets any embarrassment caused to the Premier or his family by the broadcast of this story," it said.
Click to expand...

http://www.smh.com.au/national/seven-retracts-rann-affair-claim-20100215-nzq9.html
 
Lindsay Tanner on "PM" this evening was attempting to justify this handout.

He rabbited on at length about the 'coincidence' of Mr Stokes and Senator Conroy just happening to run into each other on the ski field.

He emphasised that the funds were to make up for the disadvantage the networks had suffered in the GFC (well, duh, what business didn't suffer?)
and said it was entirely in the interests of the viewers because it would ensure more local content.

But when asked by the interviewer if there was any condition requiring a certain percentage of local content, Mr Tanner said the interviewer would have to discuss that with the Minister responsible.!!

Just pathetic. As is no commentator I've heard even suggesting that to have the TV networks in one's pocket in an election year is rather a nice thing for the government.

Your tax dollars at work, folks.
 
Calliope said:
This was a clever move. Conroy is not bright, but he is cunning as a sewer rat. To have the commercial channels on side in a election year is worth the money. However Labor should not be using taxpayers money to buy favours.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true unfortunately. A $250m free-kick that rips another hole out of the budget that will help Labor's chances of re-election (and Conroy's post-political career no doubt).
 
Who cares what Conroy or Stokes did?

It is much more important what Lindsay Fox is doing.

Protecting his staff. Which Conroy or Stokes couldn't care less about.

But hey, Conroy can claim he cares about transport workers?

I'd like to see him drive a truck. That would be a first. :D

Conroy is just a great salesman who doesn't know **** about
the lives of people he claims to care about.

Walk on Senator Conroy, you will never have my vote!
 
Anyone with half a brain could see Lindsay Fox announcement this week.

The GPS tracking announcement for haulage. If it saves lives I'm all for it. :)

What about Senator Conroy, Minister for .....?
 
Costello on Conroy:

Here is the senator's genius: the budget is in deep deficit, the government desperately needs money, and this week he announced a tax cut worth at least $250 million. Conroy announced it, not the Prime Minister or Treasurer. This tax cut will be shared between three companies. Never before has a Sunday press release delivered so much to so few.

Normally tax cuts are announced in the budget, the result of the government working out how much revenue it needs and, if it can cut tax, assessing competing claims between, say, retirees or carers or … television stations. The stations won't have to go through the budget process. Nor will Conroy have to argue why media owners are more deserving of tax cuts than the poor or struggling families.

If you want to know how valuable these tax cuts are, Channel Ten's share price jumped 10 per cent on the announcement, delivering $150 million to shareholders. It's harder to assess the gain for Seven and Nine shareholders as they are mostly private equity firms in foreign jurisdictions. But they have reason to be thankful.

Until now the government had said it cannot announce any tax relief because it was waiting for the comprehensive tax review by Ken Henry. The television owners have gazumped all that. It no longer matters what Henry recommends on television taxes. This industry's wish list has been granted.
Click to expand...

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-streets-of-conroy-are-paved-with-gold-20100216-o8ro.html
 
The above reminds me of how much I miss Costello's acerbic commentary in the parliament. Ditto the sharp wit of Paul Keating.

Mr Rudd today climbed onto his high moral horse and demanded Mr Abbott provide justification for his allegation that the payment to the TV channels was effectively an election year bribe. He pretended utter outrage that anyone could think such an unkind thing.

Meantime, Mr Rudd called a special news conference to announce funding for the homeless. To hear his rhetoric on this, you'd imagine he was going to house all Australia's homeless in five star hotels.
The reality apparently is that the funding represents $33 per year for each homeless person.
The homeless should not, however, be ungrateful for this largesse: I understand such an amount will almost cover the cost of a swag provided by one of Australia's charity organisations.

Some days it's hard not to sigh in exasperation at their pathetic mouthings and posturing and just give up on the whole political process.
 
Julia said:
Some days it's hard not to sigh in exasperation at their pathetic mouthings and posturing and just give up on the whole political process.
Click to expand...

That is what they are after Julia. Make it so banal and PC that voters lose interest and stick with whatever fear campaign makes them feel most comfortable with the brand.
 
Julia said:
Peter Van Onselen in yesterday's "The Australian" on Conroy - why he should be sacked and why he won't be:

Van Onselen is reluctant to say it. But if it looks like a bribe and smells like a bribe and acts like a bribe... it's a bribe.

Conroy is a nasty piece of work.
Click to expand...
 
Top