Petrol pass-the-parcel: Woolworths curse too much for EG
British-born EG Group, which paid $1.73 billion for Woolworths' 540 company-owned fuel convenience sites in April 2019, has revamped efforts to sell its Australian arm and is in talks to cut its losses and get out, only six years after landing with a splash and promising to shake up the local market.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
How one decision could see us shortchanged on billions
The federal budget is under pressure, the global economic outlook is volatile and cost-of-living pressures continue to hammer Australian families. And yet the communications regulator is proposing the federal government adopt a policy that could forgo up to $3.2 billion in revenue. The approach would also reduce competition among telecommunications providers and hamper the introduction of new technologies. It all revolves around how the federal government approaches telecommunications spectrum licenses. Some 69 existing spectrum licenses across seven bands are due to expire between 2028 and 2032, 48 of which are held by three mobile network operators. Spectrum is a valuable public resource. It must be managed carefully to ensure the proper functioning of commercial, government, military and emergency communications - everything from mobile phones, to radios, to televisions, to satellites, to submarines utilise spectrum to communicate. It is the job of the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), to assign spectrum. However, their approach to this issue is baffling and potentially costly. ACMA plans to renew expiring mobile spectrum licenses without a competitive auction, a decision that risks forfeiting between $2 billion and $3.2 billion in public revenue over the coming years. The cost has been estimated in independent economic analysis by Professor Richard Holden, Scientia Professor of Economics at UNSW Business School and editor of the Journal of Law and Economics. Professor Holden says the failure to hold a competitive auction for spectrum is "based on flawed economic reasoning (and) may significantly undermine public trust, market competition, and the integrity of the regulatory process". In his independent analysis, commissioned by ACCAN, Professor Holden argues that by granting renewed access to existing telcos without testing the market through an auction, ACMA risks entrenching incumbent dominance, limiting opportunities for new entrants, and failing to ensure fair market value for a critical public resource. Remember, this is a public resource that ACMA must manage in the best interest of the Australian people. You don't need to be an expert to understand that if you have an asset that multiple parties want to purchase, it makes sense to have a competitive process for its sale. Many of us act on this logic when we put our homes up for auction or other competitive sales approaches. The failure of the regulator, ACMA, to understand this is bewildering. One can only conclude that ACMA is more concerned about the welfare of the industry rather than the impact this proposal will have on the Australian public. As Professor Holden points out, if this proposed approach proceeds, it will likely be presented as "a textbook case of regulatory capture". Of course, it is not the first time this question as been asked. In January this year, the ABC cast doubt on the independence of ACMA over its practice of sharing press releases in advance of public dissemination with companies about whom it had taken regulatory action after an in-depth investigation. The ABC has also criticised ACMA as a "watch poodle" in regard to its enforcement of decently standards in the Radio Code in a Media Watch segment in 2024. Not only did the chair of ACMA seem unable to provide a straight answer about content suitability in front of the Senate - but the quantum of the fines it doled out was appropriately criticised as a "slap on the wrist". And yet, this is a time when we need a strong regulator to protect the public interest more than ever. Trust in our major telcos is brittle. Our research shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were told to expect. The latest Morgan Poll placed the telcos just behind the major supermarkets in public trust. This crisis of trust is not helped by news this month that the ACCC has fined Optus $100m, subject to court approval, for unconscionable conduct. Unconscionable conduct is a high bar and one that Optus has spectacularly surpassed, allegedly preying on some of our most vulnerable communities and consumers, including Indigenous communities. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has previously identified poor sales conduct - including misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact every day for Australians. And it appears to me that the regulator is protecting Australian telecommunication consumers' interests. We believe a parliamentary inquiry into ACMA's recent decision-making should be initiated to assess the regulator's performance, ensure accountability, and restore public confidence in the regulation of communications in Australia. To safeguard public revenue and promote competition in the telecommunications sector, the government must consider whether ACMA's approach to conducting auctions for expiring spectrum licenses is suitable. Australia must have faith in its telecommunications and an effective regulator is critical to this. We must also have faith that a valuable public asset is delivering full value to taxpayers and will continue to deliver the best and most advanced technologies to consumers at affordable prices well into the future. The federal budget is under pressure, the global economic outlook is volatile and cost-of-living pressures continue to hammer Australian families. And yet the communications regulator is proposing the federal government adopt a policy that could forgo up to $3.2 billion in revenue. The approach would also reduce competition among telecommunications providers and hamper the introduction of new technologies. It all revolves around how the federal government approaches telecommunications spectrum licenses. Some 69 existing spectrum licenses across seven bands are due to expire between 2028 and 2032, 48 of which are held by three mobile network operators. Spectrum is a valuable public resource. It must be managed carefully to ensure the proper functioning of commercial, government, military and emergency communications - everything from mobile phones, to radios, to televisions, to satellites, to submarines utilise spectrum to communicate. It is the job of the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), to assign spectrum. However, their approach to this issue is baffling and potentially costly. ACMA plans to renew expiring mobile spectrum licenses without a competitive auction, a decision that risks forfeiting between $2 billion and $3.2 billion in public revenue over the coming years. The cost has been estimated in independent economic analysis by Professor Richard Holden, Scientia Professor of Economics at UNSW Business School and editor of the Journal of Law and Economics. Professor Holden says the failure to hold a competitive auction for spectrum is "based on flawed economic reasoning (and) may significantly undermine public trust, market competition, and the integrity of the regulatory process". In his independent analysis, commissioned by ACCAN, Professor Holden argues that by granting renewed access to existing telcos without testing the market through an auction, ACMA risks entrenching incumbent dominance, limiting opportunities for new entrants, and failing to ensure fair market value for a critical public resource. Remember, this is a public resource that ACMA must manage in the best interest of the Australian people. You don't need to be an expert to understand that if you have an asset that multiple parties want to purchase, it makes sense to have a competitive process for its sale. Many of us act on this logic when we put our homes up for auction or other competitive sales approaches. The failure of the regulator, ACMA, to understand this is bewildering. One can only conclude that ACMA is more concerned about the welfare of the industry rather than the impact this proposal will have on the Australian public. As Professor Holden points out, if this proposed approach proceeds, it will likely be presented as "a textbook case of regulatory capture". Of course, it is not the first time this question as been asked. In January this year, the ABC cast doubt on the independence of ACMA over its practice of sharing press releases in advance of public dissemination with companies about whom it had taken regulatory action after an in-depth investigation. The ABC has also criticised ACMA as a "watch poodle" in regard to its enforcement of decently standards in the Radio Code in a Media Watch segment in 2024. Not only did the chair of ACMA seem unable to provide a straight answer about content suitability in front of the Senate - but the quantum of the fines it doled out was appropriately criticised as a "slap on the wrist". And yet, this is a time when we need a strong regulator to protect the public interest more than ever. Trust in our major telcos is brittle. Our research shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were told to expect. The latest Morgan Poll placed the telcos just behind the major supermarkets in public trust. This crisis of trust is not helped by news this month that the ACCC has fined Optus $100m, subject to court approval, for unconscionable conduct. Unconscionable conduct is a high bar and one that Optus has spectacularly surpassed, allegedly preying on some of our most vulnerable communities and consumers, including Indigenous communities. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has previously identified poor sales conduct - including misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact every day for Australians. And it appears to me that the regulator is protecting Australian telecommunication consumers' interests. We believe a parliamentary inquiry into ACMA's recent decision-making should be initiated to assess the regulator's performance, ensure accountability, and restore public confidence in the regulation of communications in Australia. To safeguard public revenue and promote competition in the telecommunications sector, the government must consider whether ACMA's approach to conducting auctions for expiring spectrum licenses is suitable. Australia must have faith in its telecommunications and an effective regulator is critical to this. We must also have faith that a valuable public asset is delivering full value to taxpayers and will continue to deliver the best and most advanced technologies to consumers at affordable prices well into the future. The federal budget is under pressure, the global economic outlook is volatile and cost-of-living pressures continue to hammer Australian families. And yet the communications regulator is proposing the federal government adopt a policy that could forgo up to $3.2 billion in revenue. The approach would also reduce competition among telecommunications providers and hamper the introduction of new technologies. It all revolves around how the federal government approaches telecommunications spectrum licenses. Some 69 existing spectrum licenses across seven bands are due to expire between 2028 and 2032, 48 of which are held by three mobile network operators. Spectrum is a valuable public resource. It must be managed carefully to ensure the proper functioning of commercial, government, military and emergency communications - everything from mobile phones, to radios, to televisions, to satellites, to submarines utilise spectrum to communicate. It is the job of the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), to assign spectrum. However, their approach to this issue is baffling and potentially costly. ACMA plans to renew expiring mobile spectrum licenses without a competitive auction, a decision that risks forfeiting between $2 billion and $3.2 billion in public revenue over the coming years. The cost has been estimated in independent economic analysis by Professor Richard Holden, Scientia Professor of Economics at UNSW Business School and editor of the Journal of Law and Economics. Professor Holden says the failure to hold a competitive auction for spectrum is "based on flawed economic reasoning (and) may significantly undermine public trust, market competition, and the integrity of the regulatory process". In his independent analysis, commissioned by ACCAN, Professor Holden argues that by granting renewed access to existing telcos without testing the market through an auction, ACMA risks entrenching incumbent dominance, limiting opportunities for new entrants, and failing to ensure fair market value for a critical public resource. Remember, this is a public resource that ACMA must manage in the best interest of the Australian people. You don't need to be an expert to understand that if you have an asset that multiple parties want to purchase, it makes sense to have a competitive process for its sale. Many of us act on this logic when we put our homes up for auction or other competitive sales approaches. The failure of the regulator, ACMA, to understand this is bewildering. One can only conclude that ACMA is more concerned about the welfare of the industry rather than the impact this proposal will have on the Australian public. As Professor Holden points out, if this proposed approach proceeds, it will likely be presented as "a textbook case of regulatory capture". Of course, it is not the first time this question as been asked. In January this year, the ABC cast doubt on the independence of ACMA over its practice of sharing press releases in advance of public dissemination with companies about whom it had taken regulatory action after an in-depth investigation. The ABC has also criticised ACMA as a "watch poodle" in regard to its enforcement of decently standards in the Radio Code in a Media Watch segment in 2024. Not only did the chair of ACMA seem unable to provide a straight answer about content suitability in front of the Senate - but the quantum of the fines it doled out was appropriately criticised as a "slap on the wrist". And yet, this is a time when we need a strong regulator to protect the public interest more than ever. Trust in our major telcos is brittle. Our research shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were told to expect. The latest Morgan Poll placed the telcos just behind the major supermarkets in public trust. This crisis of trust is not helped by news this month that the ACCC has fined Optus $100m, subject to court approval, for unconscionable conduct. Unconscionable conduct is a high bar and one that Optus has spectacularly surpassed, allegedly preying on some of our most vulnerable communities and consumers, including Indigenous communities. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has previously identified poor sales conduct - including misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact every day for Australians. And it appears to me that the regulator is protecting Australian telecommunication consumers' interests. We believe a parliamentary inquiry into ACMA's recent decision-making should be initiated to assess the regulator's performance, ensure accountability, and restore public confidence in the regulation of communications in Australia. To safeguard public revenue and promote competition in the telecommunications sector, the government must consider whether ACMA's approach to conducting auctions for expiring spectrum licenses is suitable. Australia must have faith in its telecommunications and an effective regulator is critical to this. We must also have faith that a valuable public asset is delivering full value to taxpayers and will continue to deliver the best and most advanced technologies to consumers at affordable prices well into the future. The federal budget is under pressure, the global economic outlook is volatile and cost-of-living pressures continue to hammer Australian families. And yet the communications regulator is proposing the federal government adopt a policy that could forgo up to $3.2 billion in revenue. The approach would also reduce competition among telecommunications providers and hamper the introduction of new technologies. It all revolves around how the federal government approaches telecommunications spectrum licenses. Some 69 existing spectrum licenses across seven bands are due to expire between 2028 and 2032, 48 of which are held by three mobile network operators. Spectrum is a valuable public resource. It must be managed carefully to ensure the proper functioning of commercial, government, military and emergency communications - everything from mobile phones, to radios, to televisions, to satellites, to submarines utilise spectrum to communicate. It is the job of the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), to assign spectrum. However, their approach to this issue is baffling and potentially costly. ACMA plans to renew expiring mobile spectrum licenses without a competitive auction, a decision that risks forfeiting between $2 billion and $3.2 billion in public revenue over the coming years. The cost has been estimated in independent economic analysis by Professor Richard Holden, Scientia Professor of Economics at UNSW Business School and editor of the Journal of Law and Economics. Professor Holden says the failure to hold a competitive auction for spectrum is "based on flawed economic reasoning (and) may significantly undermine public trust, market competition, and the integrity of the regulatory process". In his independent analysis, commissioned by ACCAN, Professor Holden argues that by granting renewed access to existing telcos without testing the market through an auction, ACMA risks entrenching incumbent dominance, limiting opportunities for new entrants, and failing to ensure fair market value for a critical public resource. Remember, this is a public resource that ACMA must manage in the best interest of the Australian people. You don't need to be an expert to understand that if you have an asset that multiple parties want to purchase, it makes sense to have a competitive process for its sale. Many of us act on this logic when we put our homes up for auction or other competitive sales approaches. The failure of the regulator, ACMA, to understand this is bewildering. One can only conclude that ACMA is more concerned about the welfare of the industry rather than the impact this proposal will have on the Australian public. As Professor Holden points out, if this proposed approach proceeds, it will likely be presented as "a textbook case of regulatory capture". Of course, it is not the first time this question as been asked. In January this year, the ABC cast doubt on the independence of ACMA over its practice of sharing press releases in advance of public dissemination with companies about whom it had taken regulatory action after an in-depth investigation. The ABC has also criticised ACMA as a "watch poodle" in regard to its enforcement of decently standards in the Radio Code in a Media Watch segment in 2024. Not only did the chair of ACMA seem unable to provide a straight answer about content suitability in front of the Senate - but the quantum of the fines it doled out was appropriately criticised as a "slap on the wrist". And yet, this is a time when we need a strong regulator to protect the public interest more than ever. Trust in our major telcos is brittle. Our research shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were told to expect. The latest Morgan Poll placed the telcos just behind the major supermarkets in public trust. This crisis of trust is not helped by news this month that the ACCC has fined Optus $100m, subject to court approval, for unconscionable conduct. Unconscionable conduct is a high bar and one that Optus has spectacularly surpassed, allegedly preying on some of our most vulnerable communities and consumers, including Indigenous communities. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has previously identified poor sales conduct - including misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact every day for Australians. And it appears to me that the regulator is protecting Australian telecommunication consumers' interests. We believe a parliamentary inquiry into ACMA's recent decision-making should be initiated to assess the regulator's performance, ensure accountability, and restore public confidence in the regulation of communications in Australia. To safeguard public revenue and promote competition in the telecommunications sector, the government must consider whether ACMA's approach to conducting auctions for expiring spectrum licenses is suitable. Australia must have faith in its telecommunications and an effective regulator is critical to this. We must also have faith that a valuable public asset is delivering full value to taxpayers and will continue to deliver the best and most advanced technologies to consumers at affordable prices well into the future.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Older Aussies back increased superannuation tax
Most older Australians support increasing taxes on high superannuation balances. The federal government is controversially hoping to lift taxes on super balances above $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent in a move predicted to impact about 0.5 per cent of savers. Despite outcry from the opposition, about 57 per cent of seniors endorse the change, according to a survey of 3000 people aged 50 and older conducted by National Seniors Australia for the Super Members Council. The results appear to track with broader public sentiment on Labor's bill, Super Members Council CEO Misha Schubert said. "There seems to be broad Australian understanding about the importance of equity and sustainability in the super system, and a strong sense of fairness as the starting point," she told AAP. While a significant majority of those surveyed believed the super system was strong and sustainable, comparatively fewer thought it was equitable. Women, those with poorer health and Australians with less formal education had lower levels of confidence in its fairness, the report found. Many of these demographics do not have equal access to the benefits of superannuation because of a lack of employment opportunities or disrupted work histories. But overall, older Australians almost universally understand the importance of super with 89.5 per cent believing it must be saved for retirement. Just one in four supported early release of funds beyond current rules. But the coalition has continued to push a housing plan that would allow first-time home buyers to access up to $50,000 from their super to put down a deposit, despite protests it would raise house prices and leave savers worse-off in the future. "Policy ideas that propose early release are dangerous and they make Australians poorer," Ms Schubert said. Most older Australians support increasing taxes on high superannuation balances. The federal government is controversially hoping to lift taxes on super balances above $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent in a move predicted to impact about 0.5 per cent of savers. Despite outcry from the opposition, about 57 per cent of seniors endorse the change, according to a survey of 3000 people aged 50 and older conducted by National Seniors Australia for the Super Members Council. The results appear to track with broader public sentiment on Labor's bill, Super Members Council CEO Misha Schubert said. "There seems to be broad Australian understanding about the importance of equity and sustainability in the super system, and a strong sense of fairness as the starting point," she told AAP. While a significant majority of those surveyed believed the super system was strong and sustainable, comparatively fewer thought it was equitable. Women, those with poorer health and Australians with less formal education had lower levels of confidence in its fairness, the report found. Many of these demographics do not have equal access to the benefits of superannuation because of a lack of employment opportunities or disrupted work histories. But overall, older Australians almost universally understand the importance of super with 89.5 per cent believing it must be saved for retirement. Just one in four supported early release of funds beyond current rules. But the coalition has continued to push a housing plan that would allow first-time home buyers to access up to $50,000 from their super to put down a deposit, despite protests it would raise house prices and leave savers worse-off in the future. "Policy ideas that propose early release are dangerous and they make Australians poorer," Ms Schubert said. Most older Australians support increasing taxes on high superannuation balances. The federal government is controversially hoping to lift taxes on super balances above $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent in a move predicted to impact about 0.5 per cent of savers. Despite outcry from the opposition, about 57 per cent of seniors endorse the change, according to a survey of 3000 people aged 50 and older conducted by National Seniors Australia for the Super Members Council. The results appear to track with broader public sentiment on Labor's bill, Super Members Council CEO Misha Schubert said. "There seems to be broad Australian understanding about the importance of equity and sustainability in the super system, and a strong sense of fairness as the starting point," she told AAP. While a significant majority of those surveyed believed the super system was strong and sustainable, comparatively fewer thought it was equitable. Women, those with poorer health and Australians with less formal education had lower levels of confidence in its fairness, the report found. Many of these demographics do not have equal access to the benefits of superannuation because of a lack of employment opportunities or disrupted work histories. But overall, older Australians almost universally understand the importance of super with 89.5 per cent believing it must be saved for retirement. Just one in four supported early release of funds beyond current rules. But the coalition has continued to push a housing plan that would allow first-time home buyers to access up to $50,000 from their super to put down a deposit, despite protests it would raise house prices and leave savers worse-off in the future. "Policy ideas that propose early release are dangerous and they make Australians poorer," Ms Schubert said. Most older Australians support increasing taxes on high superannuation balances. The federal government is controversially hoping to lift taxes on super balances above $3 million from 15 per cent to 30 per cent in a move predicted to impact about 0.5 per cent of savers. Despite outcry from the opposition, about 57 per cent of seniors endorse the change, according to a survey of 3000 people aged 50 and older conducted by National Seniors Australia for the Super Members Council. The results appear to track with broader public sentiment on Labor's bill, Super Members Council CEO Misha Schubert said. "There seems to be broad Australian understanding about the importance of equity and sustainability in the super system, and a strong sense of fairness as the starting point," she told AAP. While a significant majority of those surveyed believed the super system was strong and sustainable, comparatively fewer thought it was equitable. Women, those with poorer health and Australians with less formal education had lower levels of confidence in its fairness, the report found. Many of these demographics do not have equal access to the benefits of superannuation because of a lack of employment opportunities or disrupted work histories. But overall, older Australians almost universally understand the importance of super with 89.5 per cent believing it must be saved for retirement. Just one in four supported early release of funds beyond current rules. But the coalition has continued to push a housing plan that would allow first-time home buyers to access up to $50,000 from their super to put down a deposit, despite protests it would raise house prices and leave savers worse-off in the future. "Policy ideas that propose early release are dangerous and they make Australians poorer," Ms Schubert said.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Sharemarket steady but rally sparks sell signal worry
The Australian sharemarket is likely to remain elevated after US stocks hit fresh heights last week, with both futures indicators and the dollar remaining steady. But the S&P 500's record rally has brought it within striking distance of a sell signal, Bank of America's Michael Hartnett said. The Australian dollar was fetching US65.60¢ at 5.45am AEDT and futures were pointing to the Australian market opening at around 8583 points, a few points below its Friday close. The ASX finished above 8600 for the first time ever on Friday after a stronger-than-expected US jobs report reaffirmed the strength of the world's largest economy. Those gains followed another record-setting day on Wall Street, where the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite hit new records after the June non-farm payrolls report showed US employment rising more than expected. Loading US stocks have soared back to all-time highs on signs that the US economy is staying resilient as US President Donald Trump softened his approach on tariffs. That's ignited some speculative fever in the market, with technology heavyweights back in vogue and the buzz around artificial intelligence returning. Hartnett recommended investors start offloading shares once the benchmark rises above 6300 points – just 0.3 per cent above its Thursday close. He also reiterated that bubble risks were rising into the summer, with the House passing a $US3.4 trillion ($5.2 trillion) fiscal package that cuts taxes. 'Overbought markets can stay overbought as greed is harder to conquer than fear,' Hartnett wrote in a note.
