Category: MIL-OSI

Source: Australian Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry

New figures show that headline and underlying inflation fell last month.

This is more positive and promising news that shows we’re making progress together in the fight against inflation.

Monthly inflation fell to 2.4 per cent in the year to February 2025.

Annual trimmed mean inflation fell to 2.7 per cent.

Today’s headline result was below the median market expectation.

Inflation was high and rising when we came to government and now it’s much lower and falling.

Headline inflation has been at or below the midpoint of the Reserve Bank’s target band for six consecutive months.

Underlying inflation has been below three per cent for three consecutive months.

This is even more proof that inflation continues to moderate in our economy.

The Budget we handed down this week continues the fight against inflation and shows that Treasury now expects inflation to return sustainably to the target band six months sooner – in the middle of this year, rather than at the end.

Today’s result is a reminder of our substantial and sustained progress in the fight against inflation.

Under Labor, inflation is down, wages are up, unemployment is low, interest rates have started to come down and we’ve topped up our tax relief to give every taxpayer two new tax cuts from next year.

We know that these monthly numbers are volatile and can bounce around but the direction of travel on inflation is clear.

On the official quarterly measure, inflation under Labor is almost a third of the 6.1 per cent we inherited. Australia’s inflation is now lower than most major advanced economies.

While most other advanced economies have paid for progress on inflation with much higher unemployment, growth going backwards, or a recession, we’ve managed to preserve the progress we’ve made in our labour market while inflation has come down.

Electricity prices fell 13.2 cent in the year to February but would have fallen only 1.2 per cent without the energy rebates for every household we are rolling out with the states.

Rents rose 5.5 per cent in the year but would have increased 6.8 per cent without the recent increase to Commonwealth Rent Assistance.

Even with this substantial progress, we know people are still under pressure and that’s why our cost‑of‑living help is so important.

We’re delivering two new tax cuts that will put an average of about $50 a week back in taxpayers’ pockets when combined with our tax cuts from 2024.

Our Budget is all about helping with the cost of living and finishing the fight against inflation, strengthening Medicare and building Australia’s future.

Source: Australian Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry

James Bracey:

Now more on the Albanese government’s fourth federal Budget. Jim Chalmers catching the country off guard with a surprise tax cut for every Australian, a move the Coalition is calling an election bribe.

Sarah Abo:

And the Treasurer joins us live now from Parliament House in Canberra. Good morning to you, Treasurer, or should I call you the re‑election salesman with a Budget like that? $5 a week barely buys a cup of coffee. Can it buy an election?

Jim Chalmers:

It’s more than that, Sarah, that’s the first point. If you combine the 3 tax cuts that Labor is providing, it’s around $50 a week on average. It’s not the only cost‑of‑living help that we’re providing. We know that cost of living is front of mind for most Australians and it’s absolutely front and centre in the Budget. The tax cuts, strengthening Medicare, cheaper medicines, cutting student debt, providing energy bill rebates. This is all about providing the most cost‑of‑living help that we can in the most responsible way that we can.

Bracey:

Treasurer, why across the whole board, for everyone with this tax cut? We spoke to Kirsty earlier, cafe owner, mother of 7, who says the $5 bucks a week just won’t touch the sides.

Chalmers:

That’s only one of the 2 tax cuts that we’re providing, and 3 in total in our time in office, the average –

Abo:

But why is it for everyone Treasurer?

Chalmers:

The average is $50 a week. That’s the first point.

Abo:

Shouldn’t you prioritise the first 2?

Chalmers:

When you cut the bottom rate of tax, it flows right up and down the income scale, so it’s a tax cut for every taxpayer. These are modest tax cuts, they’re responsible tax cuts, but they’re meaningful when you take them in combination with the tax cuts which are flowing already, we’re topping up those tax cuts and we’re also providing cost‑of‑living relief in other ways.

Abo:

It’s barely going to help those top part of the brackets, as you know but it will, if it was doubled, be more of an impact for those underneath. I mean, there is still a big household onus now to find savings. The cost‑of‑living pressures are unlikely to change in the short term.

Chalmers:

That’s why we’re helping people with the cost of living. We’ve made a lot of progress together as Australians on inflation and in our economy more broadly. The Australian economy is turning a corner and that’s a very good thing. But we know that there’s more work to do. That’s why we’re providing more cost‑of‑living help and that’s why it beggars belief that the Coalition is opposing this cost‑of‑living relief.

What it means for the election is that it’s a simple choice between Labor cutting taxes to help with the cost of living versus Peter Dutton’s secret cuts which will make people worse off. Peter Dutton wants to cut everything except income taxes and that will be part of the choice that we’ll be asking people to make at the election.

Bracey:

There really is no Treasurer budget for an election and you set aside a further billion dollars for that election. What is up your sleeve?

Chalmers:

I don’t agree with that characterisation. It’s a budget about building Australia’s future and strengthening Medicare and helping with the cost of living. When it comes to that line in the Budget about decisions taken but not announced, that’s actually very small by historical standards. There are good reasons to have a small amount of money provisioned for in that way. If you compare that with earlier budgets, that line item is actually incredibly small.

Abo:

The surpluses are firmly in the review mirror, aren’t they, Treasurer? I mean, what a legacy; 10 years of deficit. Now you’re staring down extraordinary debt as far as the eye can see and without a real concrete plan to pay for it.

Chalmers:

I think it’s unusual, Sarah, that your question doesn’t acknowledge that when we came to office there were only deficits, and we turned 2 of them into surpluses and we shrunk the deficit for this year. We’ve made a lot of progress in the Budget. We’ve helped engineer the biggest ever nominal improvement in the Budget position in a single parliamentary term. More than $200 billion improvement, much less debt than what we inherited from our predecessors and that’s making a structural improvement to the budget as well. We have got the budget in better nick. We’re providing responsible cost‑of‑living help, we’re strengthening Medicare and we’re investing in the future of this country. And we’re doing that in the most responsible way that we can.

Bracey:

There’s a legitimate crisis in amongst all this though, Treasurer. The tobacco taxes collapsed to a 14‑year low. It’s blown a $17.6 billion hole in the tax base. Meanwhile, we see fire bombings almost daily, fuelling the black‑market wars that are going on as we speak. So, what will the government be doing about it all?

Chalmers:

There are 2 reasons why tobacco excise goes down. One of them is a good reason, one of them is a bad reason. The good reason is more and more people giving up the darts, which is what we want to see. But the bad reason is the case that people are finding more ways around tobacco excise. That’s why we’ve invested a substantial amount of money in new resources for compliance and enforcement. We do know there’s an issue. We acknowledge that. That’s why we’re trying to resource some more compliance and some more enforcement, because there has been some leakage in the Budget in that regard.

Abo:

Long night for you, Treasurer, and an early start. Thank you for joining us this morning and speaking to our audience. Appreciate it.

Chalmers:

Nice to talk to you both. Thank you.

Source: Australian Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry

Raf Epstein:

Jim Chalmers has delivered his fourth Budget. He’s the federal Treasurer. Good morning.

Jim Chalmers:

Good morning, Raf. How are you?

Epstein:

I’m good. Look, people on $45 grand might really need it, but people earning $200 grand don’t need an extra $500 a year in a tax cut. High earners are getting tax cuts. Why?

Chalmers:

Well, every Australian taxpayer’s getting another 2 tax cuts in addition to the one that started rolling out in July. And that’s what we’re doing in the Budget. We’re topping up the tax cuts.

And when you cut the bottom rate from 19 cents all the way down to 14 cents, that flows to every taxpayer. That’s just how the tax system works. But the benefits will be disproportionately felt for people on lower incomes, younger people, people entering the workforce, and that’s deliberate.

Epstein:

Why are high income earners getting it? I just want to understand the rationale. You and I don’t need that money. It could be better spent by the government, it could be targeted at people who need it. Why are we getting it?

Chalmers:

Because the way the tax system works is it’s a marginal tax system and when you cut the bottom rate, it means that every taxpayer benefits and the –

Epstein:

– that’s an explanation. That’s not a reason.

Chalmers:

The only easy way to limit the tax cuts is to provide it in people’s tax returns. We’ve done that in the past, but we wanted to make this a weekly, enduring, ongoing benefit to people. The benefit, when you combine our 3 tax cuts together is an average tax cut of about $50 a week.

You ask me about cost‑of‑living relief more broadly. It’s not the only thing we’re doing. You know, strengthening Medicare is about out of pocket health costs, cheaper medicines, energy bill rebates, cutting student debt. These are all of the ways that we are responsibly helping people with the cost of living.

Epstein:

Without an election, would there have been tax cuts?

Chalmers:

Yes, we’re very keen to top up the tax cuts which started flowing in July. And that’s because we recognise that even though we’re making a heap of very encouraging progress in the fight against inflation, we’ve got inflation down lower and earlier in the budget than was expected, even at the end of last year.

But we know that people are still under pressure and so we’re providing cost‑of‑living relief, really one of the main focuses in the Budget. And, and we’re doing that in a whole bunch of ways and giving people 2 more tax cuts to top up the tax cuts, which are already flowing, is a very effective way of doing that.

Epstein:

Jim Chalmers, as Treasurer, your shared equity scheme, it is extra help for some people to buy a house, but there’s not much for most people trying to buy a house. Why do you keep kicking that can down the road?

Chalmers:

I don’t think we are. You know, the Help to Buy scheme, the expansion means about 40 – helping about 40,000 Australians into the housing market. That’s a significant amount of people. But it’s not the only thing we’re doing in housing.

There’s about $33 billion being invested in housing in all kinds of responsible ways, from social and affordable housing to the Help to Buy scheme, to working with the states to open up new estates and make sure that it’s got the infrastructure that it needs.

We’re investing in housing in a whole bunch of ways. We know that there’s a shortage. It’s one of the big challenges in our economy, as you and I have spoken about, I think, on a number of occasions, Raf and that’s why we’re doing something about it.

Epstein:

But aren’t those changes on the edges? The big changes are how we incentivise people to build wealth. Negative gearing, capital gains, like that’s the big lever that you haven’t pulled?

Chalmers:

We haven’t. That’s correct. But whether it’s cost of living or housing, it’s best not to look at any one measure in isolation. You look across what we’re doing in housing, we’ve got the most ambitious housing programme of any government in my lifetime.

Epstein:

Are you scared of negative gearing changes?

Chalmers:

We’re not going down that route because we’re not convinced that it would build more homes to change that. We’ve made that clear. And our emphasis is on housing supply. We want to build more homes, 1.2 million homes in the next 5 years. That’s going to be difficult. It’s ambitious, but it’s achievable if everybody does their bit.

We’ve shown a willingness and enthusiasm to invest in housing because we know it’s the source of a lot of this cost‑of‑living pressure, which is still hanging around. We know we don’t have enough homes. That’s why we’re acting decisively with $33 billion of investment.

Epstein:

Jim Chalmers is the Treasurer on 774. We’ll have a word to the Shadow Treasurer, Angus Taylor, soon as well.

Treasurer, if you had 60 seconds in a lift with Donald Trump, what would you say to him?

Chalmers:

I think I’d tell President Trump, exactly what I told his Treasury Secretary in Washington D.C. a few weeks ago. Ours is an economic relationship of mutual benefit. They run a big trade surplus with us, they enjoy tariff‑free access to our markets. We believe that should be taken into consideration and we will always speak up for and stand up for our interests.

Epstein:

Do you think he cares about Australia?

Chalmers:

I don’t think that’s a question really for me. You’d have to ask him. But I do believe whoever is in the White House and whoever is in the Lodge, this is such an important economic relationship and security relationship, it benefits both countries. And we will continue to make our case to stand up and speak for our interests.

We don’t want to trade away the things that we’re proud of in Australia, things like the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that I invested in in the Budget. We want to make sure that we’re strengthening that because Australians need us to, not weakening it because American multinationals want us to. So that’s been in the mix. That’s been some of the things that have been discussed. I would make the same points to President Trump that I made to his Treasury Secretary.

Epstein:

You did pull a bit of a rabbit out of your hat with the tax cuts last night. One thing you did not mention is Melbourne’s suburban rail loop. Why not?

Chalmers:

Because we’d already funded that. As you know, I think the funding got released a few weeks ago. But that’s been in our, that $2 billion or so has been in our budget for a while. Usually in the Budget speech, you mentioned the new things.

Epstein:

You don’t think it’s a sketchy project, you’ve got faith in it?

Chalmers:

Well, it’s cleared the hurdles. And So we’re providing that $2 billion. We believe in it. We think it’s a project worthy of Commonwealth investment. That’s why Catherine King, my colleague, has been working closely with the Victorians to provide and release that funding for Suburban Rail Loop. But in the Budget speech last night, we focused on Sunshine Station because that’s part of a big new investment we’re making in the Airport Rail line.

Epstein:

Tobacco excise. I think it’s about $1.40 of tax per cigarette at the moment. That is failing in your Budget. You’re taking in even less money than you thought you would. It’s failing on the streets. Why are you sticking with that while shops are burning?

Chalmers:

There are 2 reasons why tobacco excise is down. There’s a good reason and there’s a bad reason. Good reason is more people giving it away. But I do acknowledge the essence of your question, which is we’ve got a challenge here and too many people are avoiding the excise, and that’s why we’ve actually invested a substantial amount of money and resources in the Budget last night to try and crack down on people avoiding the excise. There’s a lot of money in the Budget for compliance and enforcement because we do have a problem there. I acknowledge that. We’re doing something about it.

Epstein:

Will we ever get a surplus?

Chalmers:

We’ve delivered 2 surpluses, Raf.

Epstein:

I’m talking looking forward.

Chalmers:

I know, but this is too easily lost. When we came to office, there were deficits in every year, we turned 2 of them into surpluses. And we’ve shrunk the deficit this year and that’s helping us get debt down this year by $177 billion. I think that is too easily lost.

We do acknowledge there are structural issues in the budget in the medium term and in the longer term. That’s what’s motivated us in terms of making spending on the NDIS and in aged care more sustainable. We have made a structural difference, a structural improvement to the budget over time with those measures. But the work of budget repair is ongoing.

In every single one of our 4 Budgets, we’ve had savings. We’ve tried to. When we’re investing money in helping with the cost of living or strengthening Medicare, we’ve done it in the most responsible way that we can, which recognises these pressures on the budget.

Epstein:

Thanks so much for your time this morning.

Chalmers:

Appreciate it, Raf. All the best.

Epstein:

Jim Chalmers there, the federal Treasurer.

Source: Australian Ministers for Regional Development

TPG Telecom Limited has paid $75,120 in penalties after the ACCC issued it with four infringement notices for alleged contraventions of the Telecommunications Act by failing to comply with its joint functional separation undertaking.

TPG’s undertaking includes obligations designed to ensure separation of wholesale and retail functions as required by the carrier separation rules in the Telecommunications Act.

The ACCC alleges that, from 31 August 2023 to 22 May 2024, TPG failed to have measures in place to prevent staff of its wholesale and retail businesses from accessing the other’s premises unless accompanied to the extent practicable while on the premises, as required in the undertaking.

It is alleged that on four occasions a senior TPG wholesale staff member worked unaccompanied in offices where TPG retail staff were located without any physical or other security barriers separating the respective staff.

The staff separation obligations are intended to prevent staff from the two businesses sharing sensitive information that could favour TPG’s own retail operations over third-party retailers on its Vision Network.

Although there was no evidence that sensitive information was shared, the alleged conduct had the potential to affect competition in relation to the supply of retail broadband services to a significant number of consumers.

“This is our first enforcement action for an alleged contravention of the carrier separation rules as we continue to focus on promoting competition in essential services, such as telecommunications,” ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver said.

“Carriers must comply with the carrier separation rules which are designed to promote retail competition and choice for consumers on alternative fixed-line broadband networks.” 

“The new telecommunications infringement notice powers allow us to respond quickly to instances of non-compliance. However, where warranted, we will not hesitate to pursue matters in the Federal Court and seek significant penalties, of up to $10 million per contravention,” Ms Carver said.

Background

On 7 April 2022, the ACCC accepted a joint functional separation undertaking given by TPG on behalf of the TPG Retailers and TPG Wholesalers under Part 8 of the Telecommunications Act.

The undertaking was given under the carrier separation rules in the Telecommunications Act, which require superfast network operators to operate on a wholesale-only basis, unless they seek an exemption from the ACCC. This means that a company that controls a superfast broadband network cannot supply retail services over it unless there is a class exemption or a functional separation undertaking in place.

On 4 September 2024, the ACCC issued the ACCC Telecommunications (Infringement Notices) Guidelines 2024 informing telecommunications operators of the ACCC’s approach to exercising its infringement notice powers for failure to comply with the carrier separation rules under Part 8 of the Telecommunications Act.

The ACCC has also published industry guidance on the carrier separation rules that provides an overview of the obligations which apply to network operators and intermediaries supplying retail services, including apartment building owners, property managers and retirement village operators.

Details of the infringement notices given to TPG are available on the Telecommunications infringement notices register.

Note to editors

The payment of a penalty specified in an infringement notice is not an admission of a contravention of the Telecommunications Act 1997.

The ACCC Chair, as an authorised infringement notice officer, can give an infringement notice when they have reasonable grounds to believe a person or business has contravened certain civil provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1997.

Source:

26 March 2025

Men in local leadership positions are unaware of gender leadership disparities and are less likely to challenge dominant stereotypes compared to women, suggests new research by the University of South Australia.

UniSA researchers interviewed more than 30 people in local leadership roles in regions experiencing industrial transformation, across government, business, sporting clubs, religious organisations and academia. All participants were from communities directly affected by the closure of Australia’s automotive industry in 2017, in suburban Melbourne, northern Adelaide and Geelong. They were interviewed in 2023 about gendered stereotypes that existed when the crisis unfolded and progressed, as well as when COVID hit.

The findings suggest that women and men leaders agreed on what makes a good leader. However, women experienced daily impacts related to gender leadership stereotypes and actively worked to break down these biases. On the other hand, men leaders tended to be unaware of gender differences, believing they didn’t exist.

Lead researcher Dr Lynette Washington says the men in the study largely accepted dominant gender leadership norms without questioning them, limiting their ability to push for alternative leadership styles which might assist to drive real change in regions undergoing a major industrial shift.

“The thing that was most striking was that when we spoke to women, they immediately identified that they were impacted by stereotypes and they undertook detailed, sophisticated work to deconstruct those ideas. They understood how stereotypes impacted them, they thought about that impact regularly and deeply, and it was very much front of mind for them,” she says.

“When we asked the men about gender bias, they didn’t believe that it existed for women or men leaders. And because of that, they couldn’t deconstruct these ideas to understand how they functioned and impacted people in the workplace.”

The research was centred around the concept of ‘place-based leadership’, a collaborative, community-led approach to leadership that aims to improve the social and economic outcomes for a specific community.

Dr Washington says place-based leadership is not much so much about the job a leader is doing but the way they’re doing it – with an emphasis on collaboration, leading through persuasion, soft power and networking.

“It’s about their understanding and care of the place. Many place-based leaders live in the place they lead and key to being a placed-based leader is having a connection or a personal investment,” she says.

“The findings of our study suggest that greater awareness of gender in leadership would help create more inclusive and effective leadership and this could lead to fairer outcomes.”

One of the research participants shared her experience with gender bias in local government. 

“The first time I stood up to speak in council the town clerk said to me, “Well that’s very nice. Now be a good girl and sit down,” she said.

Researchers have documented gender bias in leadership since the 1970s, a phenomenon that US researcher Dr Virginia Schein called “think manager, think male”. Dr Washington explains the issue now is that men must do more to help deconstruct bias.

“If men can’t take that first step of acknowledging gender stereotyping in the workplace is real, they can’t do the work to address it. Women are acknowledging it and working hard to deconstruct and change it, but part of the reason it’s not progressing in the way that it needs to is that men aren’t also doing that work to the degree that is required for change,” she says.

“Without equality in leadership, we can’t access the full wealth of knowledge, experience and ability that exists in places. Left behind places need to access the full range of skills and abilities that they hold to ensure they can meet the challenges ahead.

“Places like the northern suburbs in Adelaide and Geelong in Victoria experienced significant disruption when the car manufacturing industry closed and were also hit hard during the pandemic. We need the best possible leadership in these places and that means challenging old ways of leading and introducing new, more effective leadership styles. One way to do that is to have a greater awareness of gender within leadership.

“This will result in more equal outcomes across the regions.”

To access the research paper: Washington, L., Beer, A., & Kulik, C. T. (2024). Gender, place leadership and levelling up across regions. Contemporary Social Science, 19(4), 583–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2024.2441856

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Contact for interview: Dr Lynette Washington, Research Fellow, UniSA E: Lynette.Washington@unisa.edu.au

Media contact: Melissa Keogh, Communications Officer, UniSA M: +403 659 154 E: Melissa.Keogh@unisa.edu.au

Source: New South Wales – News

About 10am on Wednesday 26 March, police were called to a home at Rufus Crescent after a woman was found collapsed at the property.

Sadly, the woman was pronounced dead at the scene.

Southern District CIB detectives are at the scene investigating the circumstances surrounding the death.

Further information will be provided when known.

Source:

Lakes Entrance Fire Brigade is this year celebrating 50 years of collecting for the Good Friday Appeal.

Submitted by	Brittany Carlson

Source:

We saw our firefighters of tomorrow kick off 2025 CFA/VFBV State Firefighter Championships last weekend, but there is more to come with our Senior Urban and Senior and Junior Rural teams gearing up for the final weekend.

Submitted by	CFA Media

Source: Allens Insights (legal sector)

Campaigns keep evolving, with more high stakes ahead 11 min read

Last year was another big one for shareholder activists globally, with investor sentiment in 2024 taking its cues from disruption across the broader economic and geopolitical landscape. Closer to home, activity was more stable in Australia—as it typically is, owing to our smaller footprint, more stringent company laws and stable markets—but campaigns continue to evolve, with activists refining their strategies to both capitalise on financial opportunities and seek redress for governance concerns.

We expect high stakes for the rest of the year as the Trump administration’s policies upend commercial and regulatory settings and potentially tip the scales in favour of activists. While shareholder activism is now a standard part of the investment landscape in the US, the practice is reverberating around Australia and the rest of the world.

In this Insight, we bring together the key takeaways from 2024 and provide our thoughts on what we see ahead.

A snapshot of the numbers

Activist activity has well and truly bounced back from the subdued levels brought about by the pandemic.

Over 1000 companies were targeted by activist campaigns worldwide for the second consecutive year.¹ The US continues to be the epicentre of activity, with nearly 600 US-listed companies facing activist demands, marking a 7% increase from 2023 and 16% from 2022. There was a strong showing from non-traditional and first-time activists—a record-breaking 160 different investors launched campaigns in the US in 2024, which included 45 first-time activists, also a record.

Activity in Asia was similarly strong (particularly in Japan and South Korea), though Europe trended down, owing to ongoing disruption brought about by the conflict in Ukraine and generally subdued economic activity. There, the United Kingdom hosts the lion’s share of activity, with 42% of campaigns targeting British companies.

Australia saw a modest rise in activity year on year, with 56 companies targeted, up nominally from the 54 campaigns recorded in 2023. While the volume of campaigns remained steady, the effectiveness of Australian activists improved—activists were assessed as having achieved their objectives in 25% of resolved campaigns, up from 16% in 2023.

Despite this, Australian activists struggled to secure board representation in target companies, with only seven board seats gained in 2024, down significantly from 26 in 2023. This divergence suggests that although activism remains a powerful force for corporate engagement, the dominant institutional investors and influential proxy advisors remain selective and largely hesitant in delivering changes at the board level.

All up, campaign volumes continue to be strong, though success is trickier to measure. Whether the public demands of activists are met is one tangible way of assessing effectiveness, but the overall impact of a campaign can often manifest in less direct ways. For example, the opportunity cost of management in responding to a campaign, the inherent value derived from the ensuing publicity and any derivative or other trading in the target securities—and, of course, the concessions that play out behind closed doors—often contribute to the effectiveness of shareholder activism.

Stories from the front line

These are some of the headline-grabbing campaigns that played out in the last year or so that have set the tone for activist causes.

One of the most closely watched activist campaigns was Glenview Capital’s attempt to gain board representation at CVS Health. Glenview increased its stake in CVS in the third quarter of 2024 by 31%, making its US$635 million holding (equivalent to 1% of the stock) the largest of all three activist hedge funds with an interest in the company. The intervention came following a 27% drop in share price since the beginning of 2024, a market reaction reportedly attributed to higher medical costs in CVS’s insurance segment caused by an influx of medical procedures delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Glenview secured four board seats in November 2024, including Glenview CEO Larry Robbins. It was reported that the board appointments were made amid the prospect of Glenview initiating a public and more aggressive proxy fight. This case highlights the increasing sophistication of activist investors targeting high-profile global companies, and underscores the importance of clear, proactive shareholder engagement strategies—a strategy that Australian boards should observe as activism intensifies.

The activist campaign led by Elliott Investment Management resulted in a change of CEO at Starbucks and a correspondent increase in share value by 24%, equating to US$26 billion in value and marking the company’s most successful day since its initial public offering in 1992.

In July 2024, it was reported that Elliott had become one of the largest investors in Starbucks, and sought to leverage its position by presenting a proposal to the board for an overhaul of domestic and international strategy. The move followed the stock price having declined by 24% since the former CEO, Laxman Narasimhan, was appointed in March 2023. While Elliott approached the board in private and did not publicly advocate for a replacement CEO, there were persistent leaks to the media, which commentators assessed as likely prompting the decision. On 13 August 2024, the board announced the appointment of Brian Niccol, former CEO of restaurant chain Chipotle, who is credited with Chipotle’s modernisation and an increase in its stock price by 770% since 2018.

The campaign illustrates that one response strategy in dealing with activists, particularly high-profile investors, can be to move pre-emptively to instigate change before the issues are forced.

In June 2024, Elliott also disclosed an 11% economic stake in Southwest Airlines worth US$1.9 billion, and converted enough of its derivate holdings in September to amass a 10% common stock holding that enabled Elliott to call a special meeting. Conversely to its approach for Starbucks, it engaged in a more public campaign, by proposing that ‘enhancing the board, upgrading leadership and a comprehensive business review’ were necessary to increase Southwest’s stock price. In October 2024, it was announced that Southwest would appoint five independent directors nominated by Elliott in addition to another board member, and that the former chief executive and then chairman would accelerate his retirement. Following the announcement of the personnel changes, Elliott withdrew its demand for a special shareholder meeting intended to replace 10 members of Southwest’s 15-person board. Elliott’s influence has continued to grow since then, with Southwest disclosing on 19 February 2025 that the company’s agreement with Elliott has been amended to increase the maximum aggregate economic exposure that Elliott may acquire, from 14.9% to 19.9%, but limit it from acquiring more than 12.49% of outstanding common stock until 1 April 2026. When Elliott disclosed its position in June 2024, the Southwest stock price was US$29.70, and as at 14 March 2025, it was US$31.73.

Consistent with the sentiments of the Trump administration’s focus on rolling back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, a group of Apple shareholders submitted on 25 February 2025 a proposal titled ‘Request to Cease DEI Efforts’. This was rejected at Apple’s shareholder meeting in February 2025, with 97.67% of the vote being against the proposal. The campaign against Apple is one of several anti-DEI proposals that have been levied against prominent companies, including Costco, where the proposal was defeated by 98% of votes, and farm equipment maker John Deere, where the proposal was defeated by 98.7%. These proposals have attracted significant attention, by harnessing viral social media campaigns advocating for customer boycotts, inundating company social media accounts with negative comments, and lobbing the threat of lawsuits alleging that DEI initiatives constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. Despite the spotlight (or perhaps because of it?), shareholders of the world’s most valuable listed company voted overwhelmingly not to abandon its DEI initiatives.

Activist themes

We see two broad themes that motivate activists at the moment. For the reasons set out in the next section, we think the global economic and geopolitical settings provide an opportunity to shape activist behaviours.

First, there is the more traditional activist strategy where professional investors identify companies that they perceive could optimise their performance or enhance their governance structures, and then seek to exert influence to encourage the company to focus on increasing shareholder returns. They do this by pushing for one or a combination of:

• a realignment in strategy—eg when Tanarra Capital applied pressure on Lendlease, leading to a radical shift in its business strategy by forcing the company to exit its international property development ventures and refocus on Australian operations;
• a different approach to M&A activity—such as Bell Rock’s public campaign against Whitehaven in 2023, where the hedge fund contacted shareholders with letters advocating against the company’s acquisition of metallurgical assets from BHP, which it also did via a website. Bell Rock’s public tactics sat alongside its undisclosed 13.041% long position in Whitehaven, prompting intervention from the Takeovers Panel; and
• leadership change—as was achieved by Elliott in the Starbucks and Southwest Airlines campaigns discussed above.

Second, there is the rising influence of public sentiment and political undercurrents playing out in the theatre of public markets, and the volatility that comes with it. Activist campaigns are increasingly becoming a proxy for broader societal dissatisfaction.

In Australia, this dual-track activism—balancing financial imperatives with political and social influences—reinforces the heightened investor expectations for action and accountability for these issues at the board level.

For instance, shareholder dissent on pay has markedly increased in Australia recently, seeing over 40 strikes among ASX 300 companies in 2023 and 2024, compared with 22–26 strikes recorded between 2018 and 2022.² Among those receiving a strike was the Australian Securities Exchange itself, with 26.15% of votes against the adoption of the remuneration report. Commentators assessed that the vote was an expression of shareholder dissatisfaction with the $250 million write-down and anticipated cost of a further $300 million to replace the CHESS technology system. Although 13 companies in the ASX 300 received a second strike in 2024, not a single board spill proposal came close to succeeding, with none receiving more than 20% of votes in favour.³ This demonstrates that while strikes are increasing, this is not being accompanied by momentum to trigger broader change to leadership structures—it would appear that shareholders are looking to use their vote to send a shot across the bow as an appropriate warning, rather than achieve a fundamental governance reset.

Shareholders and special interest groups have also used the proxy forum to express dissatisfaction regarding climate action, reflecting broader societal concerns around environmental sustainability and climate change. Last year, Market Forces led an activist campaign against Woodside Energy, advocating for an overhaul to its climate transition action plan and encouraging other shareholders to push for further board renewal at the 2025 AGM. At the AGM in April 2024, 58.4% of proxies cast were against the transition strategy, following three hours of questions. Earlier this month, another activist shareholder group, the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, advised investors to vote against the re-election of all three directors standing at the 2025 AGM and continues to integrate climate concerns into its analysis of shareholder returns.

There is a similar experience in the UK, where Shell shareholders are still asked to vote on resolutions brought by activists to align the company’s medium-term emissions reduction targets with the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement and to factor ‘Scope 3’ emissions from fuels burnt by consumers into such calculations. Although the resolution received just 18.6% support from shareholders in 2024 (down 1.4% from 2023), the sustained pressure and media exposure may have contributed to the environmental, social and governance (ESG) proposals instead advanced by Shell’s board.

For a more detailed analysis of the specific tactics that activists deploy pursuing these issues and how companies can prepare, see our earlier Insight.

Our expectations for the road ahead

Economic and geopolitical disruption to fuel activity

The global economy is currently experiencing disruption. The focal point is, of course, the US, where the combination of (promised) tax cuts and deregulation will free up capital for investors to pursue short-term opportunities. As the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Chair, John Lonsdale, remarked in his recent address at the Australian Financial Review Banking Summit, ‘what happens in the world’s biggest economy has implications for the world, and therefore for Australia’. We thus expect the positive conditions for activists will spill across borders, and perhaps the momentum will too—the Australian Securities and Investments Commission recently outlined its first steps towards easing compliance obligations for directors.

The hoped-for spike in M&A activity creates the opportunity for shareholder activism, so we anticipate elevated volumes of activity in the near term. At the same time, the imposition of tariffs and other protectionist policies—and the market volatility and trade war they may set off—will create winners and losers, with companies that struggle in the turbulence becoming targets for activists.

A reckoning on ESG and DEI initiatives

There has been mounting pushback on ESG and, more recently, DEI policies of corporations, with activists querying their necessity and appropriateness. Critics, who may not be shareholders, will be even more emboldened by the priorities and tone of the Trump administration.

We expect that activists will continue to seek out opportunities to make high-profile examples of some companies. However, while proponents of these initiatives have attracted significant attention, we haven’t yet seen this noise translate into strong shareholder support for campaigns, as the recent experience with Apple demonstrates.

The anti-anti-ESG and DEI cause

While some activists are seeking to challenge ESG and DEI initiatives as a corporate priority, we anticipate others that may already be frustrated with perceived slow progress on sustainability, diversity and broader governance issues will look to double down and push for companies to stay the course.

This sentiment will be particularly emboldened if governments consider rolling back regulations or shifting priorities. If it is perceived that lawmakers and regulators aren’t creating the framework to manage these issues, then we expect activists to take matters into their own hands by using shareholder meetings as forums or otherwise turning to the courts.

Scrutiny of board composition and director accountability

We are seeing investors pay closer attention to the fitness for office of individual board members, by using their vote to signal dissatisfaction and impose accountability for governance missteps when directors stand for election or re-election. This can be in relation to a company that has experienced an issue, or could follow individual directors to unrelated companies.

Expect to see closer scrutiny of board composition and more protest votes against director elections. Even if candidates still easily obtain the ordinary majority needed to carry the resolution, this is a far cry from the near 100% backing candidates would typically receive, and, particularly for larger companies, shows at least some institutional investors (whose holding may have previously been seen as more passive) are sending a message.

Leveraging technology and AI in activist strategies

Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed a number of different fields, and has a role to play in the shareholder activism space as well, by making campaigns data driven and, as a consequence, more cost effective.

AI can be deployed by activists to monitor and analyse tremendous amounts of data associated with corporate disclosures and financial performance, and to recognise the vulnerabilities and patterns in would-be candidates for a campaign. As these tools grow in sophistication, we expect to see activists be able to penetrate the market more deeply, and move with greater efficiency and precision in identifying opportunities.

Activism has never been a simple strategy. We anticipate a continued evolution of the activist playbook in light of the above.

Source: New South Wales Community and Justice

Three youths charged over series of Launceston burglaries

Wednesday, 26 March 2025 – 10:22 am.

Three youths have been charged over a series of burglaries and stealings in Launceston between 22 March and 24 March following an investigation by Taskforce Raven and Northern CIB.
Two 17 year old boys were charged by Northern CIB on 22 March and 23 March in relation to burglaries at a number of commercial businesses and a private residence.
They are each facing charges of stealing, aggravated burglary, burglary, and motor vehicle stealing and will appear in the Youth Justice Division of the Launceston Magistrates Court at a later date.
During a subsequent search of a private residence at West Launceston yesterday, members of Taskforce Raven and Northern CIB located and seized approximately $8000 worth of the stolen property and arrested a third youth.
The 14 year old boy was charged with aggravated burglary, stealing, burglary, attempt to unlawfully set fire to property, and motor vehicle stealing.
He was detained to appear in the Youth Justice Division of the Launceston Magistrates Court.
During the five burglaries more than $15,000 worth of damage was caused and more than $30,000 worth of property stolen.
Investigations into the burglaries are ongoing and anyone with information should contact Taskforce Raven on 131 444 or Crime Stoppers anonymously on 1800 333 000 or online at crimestopperstas.com.au