<< 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.