Now that the defamation case of the century is over, what happens next for the key players?
Apart from an enormous $25 million-plus costs bill, the biggest problem with losing for Ben Roberts-Smith and his well-funded support network is that journalists like Nick McKenzie are now free to produce a steady stream of stories relying on all the information gathered during the five-year lawsuit.
And so it was over the weekend with McKenzie producing this Sunday story about the alleged intimidation of witnesses, which included Roberts-Smith reportedly emailing a legal threat to Gina Rinehart because she had a relative in the SAS who was one of his internal critics. Extraordinary!
Last night there was a lengthy piece on 60 Minutes, and on June 28, McKenzie’s book on the saga, Crossing the Line, will be published by Hachette Australia. There was also this long read in Nine’s Saturday papers detailing the workings and perspectives of the Roberts-Smith support network funded by Seven Network chairman and billionaire Kerry Stokes.
McWilliam emails
The Saturday feature included some extracts from emails sent to me by Seven West Media legal director Bruce McWilliam in early 2021 related to this April 2021 Crikey story.
McWilliam is a fantastically frenetic and wild emailer, unlike any other senior executive or director of a public company I’ve ever dealt with. A look back at past exchanges includes being called a “stupid idiot”, a “self-important fool” and a “cretin”.
McWilliam never liked any critical commentary about him, Seven West Media or Stokes, including the aforementioned Crikey piece calling on the independent directors to either force the immediate resignation of Roberts-Smith from the company or resign en masse themselves.
They never did, and Roberts-Smith’s resignation was only offered and accepted on Friday after the devastating judgment by Justice Anthony Besanko was delivered.
Investors were pleased as Seven West Media shares jumped two cents, or 5.3%, to 40 cents on Friday, giving it a market capitalisation of $600 million. However, as usual when it comes to controversial news, Seven West Media made no announcement to the ASX, leaving its 15,000 retail shareholders to rely on media reports to find out what was going on.
Given the calamity that has unfolded for Seven and Stokes, the more relevant question now is whether the 67-year-old McWilliam, who controversially attended most of the 110-day trial with Roberts-Smith, will be terminated by the board.
Perhaps the broader issue is what Kerry Stokes does next — along with what advertisers, shareholders and regulators do with Kerry Stokes.
When quizzed at the 2022 Seven West Media AGM about the Roberts-Smith matter, this is what happened according to a report in The Age the following day:
Callum Foote, who was attending the AGM on behalf of activist shareholder Stephen Mayne, said he was called over by a woman to speak to Stokes after the AGM concluded, where he had asked a series of questions about Roberts-Smith’s case and employment status.
‘Tell Stephen that Ben Roberts-Smith is innocent and deserves legal representation and that scumbag journalists should be held to account. And quote me on that,’ Stokes said, according to Foote.
However, a Seven spokesman later denied Stokes made these comments, including to a reporter from the AFR.
Stokes on the grill
For some reason, Australia’s 100-plus billionaires rarely get cross-examined in court, appear before parliamentary inquiries, or even give interviews. Sometimes, using the legal protections of a public AGM is the only way to engage with them.
If Stokes’ close friend and fellow billionaire James Packer can be forced to appear before judicial inquiries in three separate states over scandals at Crown Resorts, then surely it is time Stokes was grilled about his suitability to remain in charge of coveted federal government television licences, which reach more than 90% of the Australian population after last year’s $132 million takeover of Seven’s regional affiliate Prime Media.
It was scandalous Stokes ignored the fact that, via his powerful position as the proprietor and chairman of Seven for almost 30 years, he was a custodian of journalism and free speech in Australia. Instead, he used his huge resources to launch an extensive legal war against a rival media company, individual journalists and even former SAS soldiers preparing to testify against Roberts-Smith, a now thoroughly discredited murderer and liar.
His fitness to remain a television licensee should be probed, ideally by someone like Adam Bell SC, the Sydney barrister who did such an excellent job at the Crown Sydney and Star Entertainment inquiries commissioned by the NSW Gambling regulator.
Alternatively, Stokes could try to head off the coming backlash by apologising for backing Roberts-Smith, resigning as Seven West Media chairman, and donating $50 million of his estimated A$6.3 billion fortune to press freedom causes — out of which Nine’s legal costs could be covered and traumatised SAS soldiers who gave evidence against Roberts-Smith could claim compensation.
Stokes resigned quietly as chairman of Seven’s parent company, Seven Group Holdings, on November 17 2021, handing over to former Coca-Cola Amatil chair Terry Davis to be independent chair and his son Ryan Stokes to be CEO. Stokes owns 57% of Seven Group, which owns 39% of Seven West, effectively giving him 22.2% of the media empire on a fully diluted basis.
At age 82, what is the point of Stokes remaining chairman of Seven West Media, where he draws an annual fee of $335,000? At the very least, he could offer to match the honourable practice of Kerry and James Packer and work for free.
McWilliam, who was worth an estimated $100 million-plus in 2017, should also see his pay cut in 2022-23. Malcolm Turnbull’s friend lives in a $30 million Point Piper mansion and clearly didn’t need the $1.67 million he was paid by Seven West Media’s long-suffering shareholders last financial year. Particularly given he spent so much of the year sitting in the Roberts-Smith trial having advised Stokes and the Seven West board to back the wrong horse.
