KEY POINTS:
The ironic part of today's rejection of a Canadian bid for Auckland International Airport is that the Beehive didn't even need to change the law to get the result it wanted.
Despite the Overseas Investment Office recommending that the deal be approved, senior ministers David Parker and Clayton Cosgrove have rejected it.
The reasons they give for their veto this morning show that a controversial new regulation announced last month is only one of nine "highly important" hurdles that the bid failed to pass in their eyes.
The other eight hurdles were already in the law before the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board came along to snap up 40 per cent of Auckland Airport.
They include whether the bid would assist in:
* the creation or retention of jobs;
* the introduction of new technology or business skills;
* increased export receipts;
* more competition, efficiency, productivity, domestic services;
* additional investment for development purposes;
* consequential benefits to New Zealand;
* NZ's image overseas, trade, international obligations;
* supporting significant government policy or strategy.
Interestingly, the OIO could not decide whether the bid satisfied the new regulation that it "will, or is likely to, assist New Zealand to maintain control of strategically important infrastructure on sensitive land".
The ministers, though, decided it failed this test.
Of the other eight tests that were in the law already, OIO found that six were "unknown", and two were negative.
The ministers, who themselves chose to elevate those factors to a level of high importance, decided five were unclear and three were negative.
The overall impact of all this is that the bid failed to pass the overall test of whether it was of benefit to New Zealand.
Of course this was no surprise because the Cabinet had sent a strong message that foreign ownership of the airport was not welcome when it introduced the new regulation in early March.
However, reading the decision it is hard to see how the bid would ever have won the approval of Mr Parker and Mr Cosgrove even if that regulation hadn't been there.
Now the Canadians walk away from the airport, having well and truly got the message that their investment is not welcome.
The ministers are not talking further, perhaps concerned that any comments they make might be used in court should the Canadians apply for a judicial review _ something they said on Radio NZ this morning they will not be doing.
The upshot of all this politically is that Labour's core support will love the decision and Winston Peters will be delighted.
Shareholders who accepted the offer have reason to be less pleased.
The question that remains is how many other investors, aside from the Canadians, will also walk away from potential investment in this country in the wake of this rather untidy failed transaction.
That potential effect might well be overplayed in coming days.
But Labour will not be able to avoid answering questions about that. National has already issued a press statement this morning saying Labour has put up a "don't invest here" sign on New Zealand.
John Key says National would have judged the deal against the principle that 51 per cent of shares should be in New Zealand hands in the case of strategic assets. That fulfilled, the Canadian deal would have been approved by National.
Labour appears confident its move to head off foreign ownership will be a popular one. National suspects it won't necessarily be.
In an election year, this is going to be a crucial fight.
