IMHO...
Blame Little JH and his user-pays, neo-conservative mates and the financiers who now sit in the building which arose behind the old GPO facade.
Yes, companies exist to make money for their shareholders - so management has a duty to always be thinking about how they can control costs and maximise revenue - but that can be done on a short- or long-term horizon.
The former simply looks at what can we sell/cut and what can we charge; the latter looks at the bigger picture, ok we pay our people a bit more but they give such good service that we've got a loyal client-base which will stick by us in the lean times.
But will LJH get voted out? Not whilst Mr Reasonably-Well-Off from Castle Hill's wallet continues to fatten. And that is all that matters...
I guess one can't blame the bankers, they're in business to make money from assets and here they've spotted an asset from which they believe they can make money. The blame possibly lies with those who allowed the situation to develop, both politically and within the enterprise. Clearly, APA think they will be able to get above-average returns out of the business, over the medium- to long-term. One could be for asking why no-one (eg. regulators) has asked why incumbent management has not been able to extract the same value and, as a result, to what extent their duty to shareholders has possibly not been fulfilled.
