There is no definition of national interest to assist Costello in the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act, and the Treasurer knows that whichever way he goes in the next week, it will send a powerful signal to the world on Australia's attitude to foreign investment and globalisation, with an impact, for better or worse, on the value of the struggling Australian dollar. The most extraordinary aspect of the debate is that it has failed to penetrate the national consciousness, having been confined largely to the business and opinion pages of the nation's broadsheet and financial press. Here lies a possible contradiction. Despite fears that approval of the takeover would incite even more resentment from a hostile electorate, entrenching fears of Australia becoming a branch-office economy, an exit poll of voters in the recent Ryan byelection suggested that foreign investment in general, and Shell's hostile takeover of Woodside Petroleum in particular, had failed to register. Of 57 issues canvassed, foreign investment ranked 54th, with only one of the 600 voters interviewed raising the issue of Woodside.
Many politicians fear the latter.
It is five months since Shell launched its hostile bid for Woodside. Back then, the political environment looked benign, for last year was one of those rare occasions when there was no federal, state or territory election. But when consideration of Shell's bid dragged into this year, a collision between the worlds of business and politics became inevitable. Then came Coalition defeats in the Western Australian and Queensland elections and the Ryan byelection. In January, Woodside's managing director and former Shell man John Akehurst said his priority was to secure the best deal for his shareholders, rather than debate the national interest.