Treasurer Joe Hockey has no regrets on GrainCorp ruling and nor should he The main arguments against Joe Hockey's GrainCorp decision are plain silly, writes Terry McCrann. TREASURER Joe Hockey took the "no regrets" option in knocking back the takeover of GrainCorp by the US Archer Daniels giant. If he'd ticked it through, there would have been no going back. It would have been "done" for all time. Management and, more particularly control, of almost all Australia's east coast grain export trade would have passed into the hands of a company and into its global portfolio. It would have been hard for new competitors to challenge that dominance. The main arguments against Hockey's decision are plain silly. The big one is that it undermines the new Government's claim that Australia is now "open for business." That's not, never was, and never should be, the same thing as adopting a hands-off approach. Every country reserves the right to make decisions like this. Indeed, Canada did exactly the same thing - with far less justification - when it prohibited BHP Billiton from taking over its main potash producer. More narrowly, it's claimed it will discourage foreign investment. Similar claims were made when one of Hockey's predecessors, Peter Costello, stopped Shell from taking over Woodside Petroleum. Far from that, we saw the biggest explosion of investment in gas projects in Australia ever, in the next decade. Because there was money to be made. Companies and investors soon forgot about the "message" of the Woodside decision. Equally silly is the claim the industry will lose either or both the new investments ADM had promised or greater competition for grain-growers. If either makes sense, new players will chase the opportunity. More fundamentally, the decision does not close off the option of the Government allowing another foreign buyer of GrainCorp, even ADM, if circumstances and assessments change. The only concern is whether Hockey rushed through his approval of the takeover of Warrnambool Cheese by the Canadian Saputo company, to offset this knock-back. The more complex decision the Government faces is on Qantas. Again, the last thing we want is a decision posed as a simplistic "hands off and leave it to the market" versus "we must save - and keep control of - a national icon." The airline industry is a unique and complex business. Governments can't keep their hands off when landing rights in foreign countries can be obtained only by locally-owned national carriers. The two core choices proffered by Prime Minister Tony Abbott - guaranteeing Qantas' debt, or taking a minority equity stake in the airline - seem a reasonable choice.