Congratulations to the Abbott govt for sticking up for the nation and in particular the growers by vetoing the ADM grab of GrainCorp.

I thought that it was self evident that GrainCorp should be in local hands, self evident to all except ADM, GrainCorp, and the Labor Party, who on hearing the decision declared “the government had failed its first big test on business matters.”

Are they serious....failed...

The exact same rabble that allowed the selloff of more land in a six year period (including Cubby Station) than the previous twenty years are criticizing the best decision to come from our parliament since Howard.

Polls indicate that 80% of right and left voters do not want commercial foreign ownership of Australian land....so how can the Labor Party criticize the Libs for applying the overwhelming mandate of the electorate. I have had to learn to re set my political compass when it comes to what is self evident. I don’t recognize the Labor Party anymore.

Who does the Labor party represent, obviously not the 80% of Labor followers that disagree with foreign commercial ownership. Labor have to change their name....Australian Labor Party is not descriptive of the federal rabble....the Australian Leopard Party is an option....they have certainly changed their spots.....what do they stand for, who do they represent....really.

Agreed Soggy. Interesting decision by Hockey. I would have expected the opposite from the current government.

Dear SOG,

I, like Ludwig, would also have expected a different
decision from the current government. So, Congratulations
to them for doing the right thing! I remember hearing the leader
of the LNP speak on this topic some time ago - and he
was definitely against the selling of Graincorp to
foreign investors. Perhaps the LNP had some influence
on this decision. Either way - well done!

I wounder how committed to owning our own things Liberals are.
In recent weeks Australian makers of railway rolling stock have closed or are close to closing, we are importing even to fill government contracts.
I think we did the right thing not letting grain corp get in to American hands, but remember even some growers wanted the sale to go through.
Quantas is to go, and it was only the day before this announcement we heard that from the man protecting grain corp.
World trade is seeing every country having its once firms controlled by international firms.

"""
the Australian Leopard Party, sonofgloin?
"

The Australian Mafia Party more like it.
Fraud, pedophilia, racketeering and theft seems to be what they stand for these days.

With whatshername under investigation for fraud, Thompson for theft and fraud, Shorten under investigation for raping a 16 year old, Bryce and Rudd up to their necks in protecting a pedophile and all the rest complicit in it all.

The Australian Mafia party is all you could call them!

i too was surprised
who would have thunk..it

but note how wrong bill got it

i heard him..and saw the /front person..[for the back/room-guys]
who would LOVE...a tax free/tax..write off..to avoid paying ANY*taxes to austalia..inc*

its rare to..see/such full agreement[bar/bill]
but joe's ALREADY>>OK_ED..over 100..others without a murmer

wonder how much tax take was lost there
[one refusal..and the other..139=ok?..eh?]

I'm happy to see grain Corp stay here as well.

As for qantas, it's just another nail in the coffin for local business, as we simply can no longer compete.

We had best get used to it I'm afraid, as we have literally cooked our goose.

The next two odd years will see massive closures of small businesses because they will either become non competitive, or Coles and Wollies will gobble them up.

It's an absolute shame.

Hidden from those who pelt rocks at the ALP here are some truths.
Labor opened our country to world trade.
We benefit daily as do farm producers from that single truth.
It may well be my fault, expecting balanced and thoughtful in put from a couple of posters.
Checking several news papers on line this morning adds to this subject.
Business is slightly concerned.
They, like all thoughtful posters understand we need over sea,s investment.
And to some degree are concerned at the message being sent.
I doubt a return to government/Socialism control is wanted, AWB still rings in my ears.
I remain convinced the act was the right one.
But too understand not every one agrees or that those with a different view are lessor for holding that view.
SOG has a fixation that Labor is always wrong here is a subject that opposition comes from every side not just SOG,s punching bag.

Belly>> SOG has a fixation that Labor is always wrong here is a subject that opposition comes from every side not just SOG,s punching bag.<<

China I have said to you many times before that I am a Social Democrat.
I believe in a representative democracy under the rule of law. I believe in a economy that actively opposes inequality, poverty, and oppression. I totally reject both a free market and a fully planned economy. In a nutshell I support the platforms of the ALP in the 1960’s....before they agreed to the Lima Declaration and the “sell off” of the rank and file members that inevitably came with that decision.

Belly, the Carbon Tax is a perfect example of why I asked who does Labor represents right now....It cost jobs, it achieved nothing in global terms and it sent our taxes to bureaucrats in Europe never to be seen by us again....the old Labor would have taken jobs in hand and food on tables over a cafe latte environmental crusade.....simple as that sport...common sense and economic preservation of the rank and file went from first priority to last over an ideological money scam.

Luddy, OUG, and Foxy all commented of their expectations that the Libs would sell us out....but in the end the Libs didn’t and Labor would have, that’s what I am punching. We all expect the Libs to sell us out....Howard sold off our gold reserves last stint in power.....We know what the Libs represent....what does Labor represent?

Butchers comments about Woolies and Coles is the result of consecutive left and right wing governments being ideologically captive to the free trade, free market, borderless globe strategy of the One World Government lobby. The Globalists policy on commerce is “if your big you survive, if your little don’t revive, and their policy platform was adopted by the Fist World with the signing of the Lima Declaration....and now they have attained such control that if you don't follow it they will economically sanction and credit starve you to death.

I personally would have supported the sale of Graincorp. There were valid concerns that this near monopoly could do deals that were not in the interests of Australian grain growers, but this could have been dealt with in the conditions.

Raw Mustard>>the Australian Leopard Party, sonofgloin?
The Australian Mafia Party more like it.
Fraud, pedophilia, racketeering and theft seems to be what they stand for these days.

With whatshername under investigation for fraud, Thompson for theft and fraud, Shorten under investigation for raping a 16 year old, Bryce and Rudd up to their necks in protecting a pedophile and all the rest complicit in it all.<<

RM don’t forget Obeid...Robber Baron Obeid and his band of Merry Ministers....a Sussex Street Labor man through and through.
I considered The Australian Mafia party...but rejected it because of any legal issues that might arise along ethnic and factual grounds.
There is a high level of competency in the Mafia’s day to day and upper management teams that the ALP can’t replicate. The Mafia’s financial competency and their ability to read the economy on a national and global scale again escapes the ALP.....As I said RM, the AMP rather than the ALP could get me sued by the Griffith boys for deformation ...lol

As usual, discussion has degenerated into a totally unedifying mudfight between political fanbois.

What is crystal clesr, though, is that no-one seems aware of what business GrainCorp actually is engaged in.

http://www.graincorp.com.au/

Can anyone here explain why this company would be able to operate less in the interests of Australia, if its shareholding changed?

This was a purely political decision by the Liberals to appease the National Party. It has nothing to do with the "national interest" at all, and has dudded the existing shareholders quite comprehensively, not to mention the company's management.

I am not over excited about the graincorp decision. I think the nationals had a fair bit to do with that.
The noalition have got our problems solved as they said before the election. So there is need to worry for a start. Abbott will prove himself a worthy idiot in no time. How long before the workchoices makes a comeback, Howard is pulling the strings, lets not forget. All they have done so far is insult our trading partners. They said they would hit the ground running, so what's the hold up. Will Abbott see out twelve months, i doubt it, there is a chain of pledges broken all ready.
Not to mention the pledges in blood, which is starting to look like spilt milk.

Good decision not selling Graincorp now how about buying back Quantas.Its up against it competing with foreign government bankroled airlines like Emerates Air

Dear SOG,

The following link explains things better and
may be of interest to readers:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-29/federal-government-rejects-foreign-takeover-of-graincorp/5124262

It does appear that there are quite a few different takes on the
government's decision and it also appears that Warren Truss
and the Nationals did have a great deal of input for which I
for one am very grateful that this is staying in local hands.

The graincorp decision could very well go against AU. Qantas is underused, there are cheaper options. That is what you are up against. The noalition will sort it out, they are in control, Abbott has fooled the people of AU with his Gonsky backdown. Yet another con.

Pericles>> As usual, discussion has degenerated into a totally unedifying mudfight between political fanbois<<

Fanbois Pericles?

Pericles>> Can anyone here explain why this company would be able to operate less in the interests of Australia, if its shareholding changed?<<

You tell us what you know about Don Seaton and Gardner Smith and we will see if it’s worth replying to your question.

But your patter on ownership did remind me that Hockey said he was willing to consider ADM increasing its stake from 20 per cent to just under 25%, which would probably give it practical control. But only 24.9% of the profit heads to ADM rather than as good as all.

579,
what sort of Australian are you ? You seem to be hell-bent on hoping the Coalition will fail. Only that would make you feel better by the sounds of it. Somehow I don't think you'll get your wish, I think Australia will pick up again.

<< Luddy, OUG, and Foxy all commented of their expectations that the Libs would sell us out....but in the end the Libs didn’t and Labor would have. >>

Yes but Soggy, Jo Hockey struggled with the decision, and didn’t make it due to some conviction about limiting foreign ownership, but rather, due the dodgy antics and tactics of ADM, amongst other things.

< …of the 131 significant foreign investment applications we have dealt with, this is the only application we have prohibited >

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mergers-acquisitions/joe-hockey-rejects-us-takeover-of-graincorp/story-fn91vdzj-1226771002239

So you could hardly say that the Coalition is any more principled than Labor when it comes to Australian company takeovers by foreign interests.

No decisions of this nature are never perfect.
This one on Graincorp I believe is the right decision.
In the long run everything will become local.
There is nothing more local than food distribution and that after all
is Graincorp's function.
In a possible time of food shortage I could just imagine a foreign
owned company exporting grain to its own shareholders country and
leaving Australia without.
That is what is meant by "Food Security".

QANTAS unfortunately is another matter.
I would be very happy for the government to find a formula which would assure its survival.
Unfortunately like many of its era it is destined for failure.
The whole industry is in a struggle for survival in which they will ultimately fail.
Think of all the pre-eminent airlines that have disappeared from the skies.
The industry is full of mergers and talk of mergers.
Why is it so ?
Quite simple, fuel is their number one cost and it has no future but
to get a lot more expensive. The effect on fares and passenger traffic
can only squeeze the airlines harder and harder.
Some will argue that alternative fuels will appear but so far nothing
that is much cheaper, does not solidify at low temperatures and has
similar energy content for volume and weight is anywhere in sight.
It may well be a chemically impossible target.

Fancy a job as a stoker on a coal fired 747 ?

Bazz Qantas planes may be to big or to small. Or we don't have the population base to support an international airline any more. It's a numbers game and if the figures aren't there the outcome can only be bad. A gigantic amount of international flights are arriving every day, are they having the same problems as qantas. Or are qantas winging to get some support to make the figures look better. For every winner there is a loser. If it is a problem confined to qantas they need a change at the top

No 579 it is not confined to QANTAS.
It is very much a world wide problem.
It is worse for QANTAS because of high labour costs in Australia.
That is why they are getting service increasingly done in other
places.
Someone commented that they are underused, not so I think, everytime
I have been on one they have been 100% full as far as I have been able to see.
A couple of times going to Melbourne they have cancelled flights and
I suspect that they might have light bookings and merged two flights
into one. As it is a 1/2 hourly service and it was outside peak time
it was no problem for me.
Each time I have been on international flights the planes have been
100% full, but maybe that is the time of year of my travel.

No it is fuel cost number one problem and labour costs number 2.
There is no solution for the fuel problem, it can only get worse and
I wonder if the Arab airlines have access to cheap fuel, especially
those from the Gulf, eg Etihad and Qatar.

Judging by the forward orders for aircraft I suspect that airline
management is convinced something will turn up. It is also no
coincidence that their share price is $1.22, so even if airline
management is optimistic the hard heads inhabiting the stock exchange are more realistic.

Ludwig>>Yes but Soggy, Jo Hockey struggled with the decision, and didn’t make it due to some conviction about limiting foreign ownership, but rather, due the dodgy antics and tactics of ADM, amongst other things.
So you could hardly say that the Coalition is any more principled than Labor when it comes to Australian company takeovers by foreign interests.<<

I agree Luddy....but given I am for a sovereign nation and sovereign commercial interests, Hockey’s surprise decision suits me.

Seeing that you phrased your request so very politely, sonofgloin, I will happily respond in kind.

>>You tell us what you know about Don Seaton and Gardner Smith and we will see if it’s worth replying to your question.<<

Don Seaton sold his 55% stake in Gardner Smith in September/October 2012, in exchange for around five million shares in GrainCorp. So his individual wealth is easily in excess of $40 million, effectively insulating himself from any personal financial concern

He now claims that the sale of his business to GrainCorp was in some way conditional on the company staying in Australian hands - although clearly, no such agreement was entered into. Personally, I think he is only making a fuss in order to create a bidding war, so that his stake becomes worth more - although I admit, that is pure speculation on my part.

Now, back to the question that you sidestepped.

>>Can anyone here explain why this company would be able to operate less in the interests of Australia, if its shareholding changed?<<

And if you'd like to attempt an ancillary question, perhaps you would suggest what actual, practical (as opposed to theoretical, pie-in-the-sky) steps they would need to take in order to operate in that fashion, and how competition might react to those steps.

Pericles>> Don Seaton sold his 55% stake in Gardner Smith in September/October 2012, in exchange for around five million shares in GrainCorp.<<
There is a bit more, but thanks P.

>>Can anyone here explain why this company would be able to operate less in the interests of Australia, if its shareholding changed?<<

>>And if you'd like to attempt an ancillary question, perhaps you would suggest what actual, practical (as opposed to theoretical, pie-in-the-sky) steps they would need to take in order to operate in that fashion, and how competition might react to those steps.<<

Lets start at the beginning, the growers have real concerns that a 100% foreign owned GrainCorp would reduce competition and impede their ability to access the grain storage along with logistics and distribution networks....they fear ....Rationalization..., and ADM would rationalize, all acquisitions do.

There is also the real concern that ADM would smoother the opposition with it’s assets and create a segment where existing smaller operations go under and new players become nonexistent. Please don’t dispute this with consumer and corporate statutes that protect the market from corporate predators...this is the country that spawned Woolies and Wesfarmers..hahahah

Pericles as you know GrainCorp through Allied Mills have a hefty representation into the baking and brewing segments and 100% foreign ownership by ADM leaves our domestic market open to the priorities of a foreign corporation....no there is no gain for Australia by an ADM takeover other than share price...

So they tell us, sonofgloin.

>>...growers have real concerns that a 100% foreign owned GrainCorp would reduce competition and impede their ability to access the grain storage along with logistics and distribution networks<<

But how would the nationality of the owners itself reduce competition? And does it not occur to you that those same growers are the customers without which the business does not exist? Why on earth would ADM jeopardize their business here by "impeding the ability" of growers to access the services they offer? Such actions makes no commercial sense whatsoever, as anyone in business will tell you.

I can certainly understand that the lack of investment capability that now faces GrainCorp will reduce their ability to grow their business, but this will also reduce their ability to stay competitive. The decision has effectively locked in a higher cost of doing business, for which, I am sure, GrainCorp's many competitors will be mightily grateful.

And what is your problem with "rationalization", pray? What exactly are you afraid of?

Any decision based upon xenophobia is going to affect our ability to trade with the rest of the world. Because (and I know this is the part that hurts most) we are actually highly dependent upon the economies of other countries for our well-being and economic comfort.

Building walls to create an economic Fortress Australia is to the detriment of all of us, in the form of long-term higher prices and a lower standard of living. The advantages of protectionism are entirely illusory, and such policies benefit no-one.

Graincorp is not a monopoly, they have around 50% of grain handling, and struggling to keep all facilities open. Farmers are preferring to keep grain on farm and sell to anyone with a fair price. By closing sites more farmers will be storing grain on site. Graincorp needed the money to upgrade facilities so they do not lose anymore market share. More buyers will move into the export of grain and further reduce graincorp business. I say by not allowing the sale Graincorp will slide down hill in grain handling.

I'm not so sure about this, Pericles:

>>The advantages of protectionism are entirely illusory, and such policies benefit no-one.<<

The U.S. UK and EU seem to have no problems subsidising various segments of their respective economies, and it could well be argued that they have found good reason for doing so. And, are EU 'free border' and internal trading arrangements not also aimed at protecting internal market share?
It would seem the whole world other than Oz is involved in some form of protectionism - fuel subsidies, grower subsidies, market restrictions, import quotas or significant 'red tape' hurdles, and such.
Major manufacturers are increasingly taking advantage of 'sweat shop' avenues in struggling developing nations, to maintain their competitiveness and 'market share', but this is also arguably a substantially unethical form of self-preservation, or, in other words, 'protectionism'.

It makes you wonder who is pulling Hockeys strings. Where are graincorp going to get money from, with dwindling market share and obsolete equipment they could run into trouble, then what.

Pericles>> But how would the nationality of the owners itself reduce competition? .<<

I answered all of that in my reply

Pericles >>I can certainly understand that the lack of investment capability that now faces GrainCorp will reduce their ability to grow their business, but this will also reduce their ability to stay competitive. The decision has effectively locked in a higher cost of doing business, for which, I am sure, GrainCorp's many competitors will be mightily grateful.<<

Many competitors....God you waffle on. Take a peek at the trading numbers for Ridley and Select.....they are not setting exchanges ablaze...GC revenue was up by 20% last financial and a dividend of 12% over the previous year was delivered to stockholders. Investment .........its a bloody cash cow and ADM want the lot.

Pericles >>And what is your problem with "rationalization", pray? What exactly are you afraid of?<<

Pray Unemployment Pericles, pray unemployment.

Pericles >> Any decision based upon xenophobia is going to affect our ability to trade with the rest of the world. Because (and I know this is the part that hurts most) we are actually highly dependent upon the economies of other countries for our well-being and economic comfort. <<

Xenophobia Pericles?....perhaps I just don’t like green backs...or perhaps it is the accent....or the way they dress....give me a break..

Pericles >>Building walls to create an economic Fortress Australia is to the detriment of all of us, in the form of long-term higher prices and a lower standard of living. The advantages of protectionism are entirely illusory, and such policies benefit no-one.<<

Better off P with no protection....hhahahah...gotta laugh...., thats a joke...let go of my leg!...... Here are some facts:
Before the Lima Declaration was signed in 1973 (the first global free trade agreement) more Aussies own their home then than we do now. Form the 1996 census (Census of Population and Housing 2015.0 1996) to the last census Aussies who own their homes outright has fallen from 40.9% to 32.1%.

Household debt in 1977 was 25% of disposable income..Today it is just short of 150% of disposable income. Yes Pericles for all your waffle regarding the benefits of globalization you did not mention the transference of the populations wealth to the corporations and bankers.

579>> It makes you wonder who is pulling Hockeys strings. Where are graincorp going to get money from, with dwindling market share and obsolete equipment they could run into trouble, then what.<<

Poor GC....dwindling market share...hahahahah...579 bleats on about infrastructure so tired and worn out that ADM wants it all....stupid ADM....they should have consulted 579...he would set the idiots straight...hahahahah....20% revenue hike in 2012 for GC....12% rise in dividends hahahah.....yeah 579 you know what your talking about....

That's straight out of "Through the Looking Glass" Saltpetre.

>>...are EU 'free border' and internal trading arrangements not also aimed at protecting internal market share?<<

You are suggesting that free trade agreements are a form of protectionism, which is both counter-intuitive and counter-factual.

>>It would seem the whole world other than Oz is involved in some form of protectionism<<

The whole world *including* Oz is involved in some form of protectionism. And this is definitely not a good thing - it has been shown many times over that the less protectionism, the greater is the world's economic growth. Here's a snapshot on its impact on the GFC.

"Trade has rebounded partly because countries did not become too protectionist."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/world-trade

And Australia is actually lagging the major EC countries when it comes to the level of protectionism we already operate.

http://www.iccrf.org/sites/default/files/docs/2011/12/OpenMarketsIndex_FINAL102711.pdf

We are more insular than twentyeight other countries, sitting around mid-table. Above average, but not that much to boast about.

All forms of tariffs, government subsidies to industry provide only a short-term defence against the economic realities. Ultimately, they all end up screwing the customer.

That's us.

P, you can throw in all the good news from the Economist as you wish...bottom line the average household owns less and is 500 times more indebted than the Australian household of the 1970's.

That is nonsense, and you know it.

>>...bottom line the average household owns less and is 500 times more indebted than the Australian household of the 1970's<<

Look around you.

Look around you.
Pericles,
Every mutt carrying an ipad & being oblivious to the real world around them is not a sign of a healthy economy.

Free trade agreements worked wonders for Amerika. It's totally broke, oh and Detroit is now bankrupt soon to be followed by others. Moar free trade I say, the TTP perhaps would do moar wonders for us as well!

Free trade just creates a freeeshit society full of cheap skates wanting moar freeeshit and even voting for it, just look at the posters on this forum, nuff said!

SOG Very impressive figures, but there was a sale on. Lets hope the trend continues, for Graincorp customers. Shutting down more infrastructure will not help and farmers will change their habits.

Didn't Abbott say he wouldn't "do deals with minority Parties"?

Coalition or not, he's still the Nationals' Bitch and getting his instructions from groups like the IPA.

Banana-by Joyce is in turn Gina's housepet and he presumes to speak with her influence.

Ok, obviously no-one is going to respond intelligently to the relatively simple questions I put earlier, e.g.

>>Why on earth would ADM jeopardize their business here by "impeding the ability" of growers to access the services they offer?<<

So let's get down to the nitty-gritty.

Who is now going to provide the cash needed to keep the company's basic storage activities viable?

"There's a lot of people upset about how run down the infrastructure is. There are plenty of stories of big lumps of concrete falling off silos and the general state of repair has been poor."

http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/cropping/general-news/shutting-silos-what-cost/2680553.aspx

Oh, and then there's this, from the same article:

"One of the nation's biggest growers, Ron Greentree, says as many as 150 of GrainCorp's 280-odd east coast storage sites could be closed."

Not to mention this:

"'It's a real balancing act in some areas. Growers are already questioning whether they will stay in grain in some areas where the combination of freight and handling costs are so high,' he said."

Looks very much like an Abbott own goal to me.

Or perhaps he just wants to slap the industry around a bit, to create a more competitive environment?

“'We would probably receive less than 50 per cent of the grain produced on the east coast,' GrainCorp chairman Don Taylor said. 'There’s competition from rival bulk handlers, private storages and increasingly, on-farm storage. You only have to fly over cropping regions to see the amount of grain farmers have stored in sausage bags. There’s multiple opportunities for growers to market their grain without it coming into our system, so claims we have an upcountry monopoly are just incorrect.'”

http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/agribusiness/general-news/no-monopoly-graincorp/2680384.aspx

Possible, I guess. But far more likely is that he simply needed to appease the Nationals with a vested-interest-based decision.

P, I have no time for the coalition and particularly the "nationals," the CSG industry has every ex national polly you could name doing their bidding....for the money....they were nationals...now they are multinationals.

What's the big deal with the Libs listening to the Nats ? Aren't they partners ? Doesn't the word Coalition infer partnership ?

Labor isn't the party it used to be.

Then again, neither are the Liberals.

What used to be a standard conservative party with specific ideals has become a front for corporate fascism and the neo-conservative movement that started in the 80's.

They have become a right-wing extremist group with methods and strategies imported from the US Tea Party and are in the pocket of multinational corporations and media moguls and will continue to plunder the public purse with their privatisation agenda.

Silencing their critics and avoiding scrutiny is also part of the plan.

Can you really trust these people to do what's right for you or what's right for their owners and handlers?

Forget GrainCorp.

I'm more interested in what Abbott has signed away on the TPP agreement. Corporations have been told what's in it but the public hasn't been told of all the effects.
Where was the debate?

Howard's FTA with the US hurt the local beef industry, increased the cost of pharmaceuticals and even put control of our own blood supplies into the hands of a discredited US corporation.

There was not much mention of those things in the media and we will just have to find out as it goes along.

Disgraceful.