The Claim
“Paid $6.7 million in JobKeeper subsidies to a private company whose profits quadrupled during 2020, and which is half-owned by a foreigner via a shell company in the Bahamas. Created: 2026-01-29 06:51:00 JST (Wednesday) Session ID: 7d7df6db-2847-499f-ac9b-0e07b432082a”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core facts of this claim are substantially accurate but require significant context.
Company Identification: The company is Australian Agricultural Company (AACo), Australia's largest pastoral landowner, owning 6.43 million hectares of pastoral lease land [1].
JobKeeper Amount: AACo received exactly $6.7 million in JobKeeper payments during the six-month period to September 30, 2020 [1][2].
Profit Increase: AACo's operating profit during this period was $23.5 million, compared to $6.3 million in the same period in 2019 – an increase of 272% (nearly 4 times) [1]. When excluding the JobKeeper payment itself, the operating profit would have been $17.7 million, still a substantial increase of approximately 181% [2]. However, this profit figure represents operating profit, not net profit—the company declared an overall loss of $1.7 million for the period (compared to a loss of $14.1 million the previous year) [1].
Foreign Ownership: The claim about foreign ownership via a Bahamas shell company is accurate. AACo's largest shareholder is AA Trust, a Bahamas-based entity owning 48% of the company and controlled by Joe Lewis, a British billionaire who owns Tottenham Hotspur Football Club [1]. However, the characterization as "shell company" is not standard business terminology—it is a legitimate trust-based holding structure for asset protection and investment management, a common practice among wealthy international investors [3][4].
Missing Context
The claim omits several important contextual factors regarding JobKeeper eligibility:
Eligibility Criteria: Companies were eligible for JobKeeper if their turnover fell by 30% (or 50% for very large companies) [1]. Importantly, the eligibility assessment was based on a "reference month" (April 2020 in AACo's case), not ongoing profitability [1][2].
Why Profits Increased Despite JobKeeper: The claim misleadingly suggests JobKeeper was unwarranted. However, AACo's profits increased due to two separate factors: (1) record-high cattle prices globally, which were an external market factor beyond the company's control [2], and (2) improved branded beef sales, particularly in North America [2]. The JobKeeper payment did not cause profits to rise—it was paid based on April 2020 conditions, and profits improved later due to market conditions.
Food Service Disruption: AACo stated that in April 2020, all 16 of its food service markets were "effectively closed down overnight," creating unprecedented uncertainty at the time of JobKeeper qualification [1][2]. While profits eventually rebounded, the justification for the payment at the point of application was based on genuine business disruption.
Overall Financial Position: AACo's net result for the full 2020/21 financial year was a loss of $1.7 million (down from $14.1 million loss the previous year), not a profit [1]. The company paid no dividends to shareholders [2]. The company was heavily burdened by fixed costs including maintaining a shuttered slaughterhouse at Livingstone, NT, costing approximately $1 million annually [2].
Source Credibility Assessment
The Guardian: A mainstream, internationally respected news organization with strong fact-checking standards. The article by Ben Butler includes detailed financial data from AACo's official statements and ASX filings [1].
ABC Rural: Mainstream Australian broadcaster. The article confirmed AACo's stated operating profit of $24.4 million (which excluded some items) and acknowledged the JobKeeper component [2].
Sydney Morning Herald: Mainstream Australian broadsheet. The analysis by Charlotte Grieve examined ASX-listed companies' JobKeeper disclosures, with direct quotes from AACo management explaining their eligibility [3].
All sources are credible mainstream media outlets, not partisan advocacy organizations. However, it's worth noting that the original Guardian article frames the story negatively around "profits soaring" while receiving subsidies—a framing choice that, while factually defensible, emphasizes one perspective without fully contextualizing the profit drivers (commodity prices and food service disruption timing).
Labor Comparison
Did Labor have equivalent programs with similar foreign ownership issues?
During the Global Financial Crisis (2008-2009), Labor's stimulus response included various wage subsidies and business support programs. However, specific evidence of comparable foreign-owned company subsidies in comparable amounts is limited in available sources.
Broader precedent: Government wage subsidy schemes across developed nations (US Paycheck Protection Program, UK Furlough Scheme, Japanese Emergency Employment Adjustment Subsidy) all included foreign-owned companies without specific restrictions or eligibility barriers [5]. This is because wage subsidies are designed to preserve employment and business continuity, not to exclude foreign ownership [5].
Key difference: The criticism of JobKeeper profiteering was not unique to foreign-owned companies—it applied broadly. Mainstream Australian companies like Cochlear, Premier Investments, Eagers Automotive, Accent, and Best&Less also retained JobKeeper payments despite profitability [3]. This indicates the issue was systemic design (lack of clawback provisions) rather than specific to foreign ownership.
Balanced Perspective
The Criticism (Valid aspects):
The criticism that AACo received substantial subsidies despite subsequently improving profitability is fair. From a policy perspective, one could argue that:
- JobKeeper's reference month system created a timing mismatch—companies could be approved based on April conditions and later profit from changing market circumstances [1][2]
- Without mandatory clawback provisions, profitable companies had no legal obligation to repay, regardless of their eligibility at application time [3]
- Paying subsidies to foreign-controlled entities does create optics concerns about public funds benefiting non-Australian shareholders [1]
The Justification (Also Valid):
However, the government's design choice and AACo's use of payments were defensible:
Reference month necessity: Treasury could not assess ongoing profitability in real-time during a crisis. Using a snapshot month was administratively practical [1]. At that April 2020 snapshot, AACo was genuinely experiencing severe business disruption [1][2]
Wage preservation: AACo used JobKeeper to "keep our people in our roles," retaining staff through genuine uncertainty [1]. This was the stated purpose of the scheme [3]
Later profit from external factors: The rise in cattle prices was a global market phenomenon, not attributable to JobKeeper [2]. No causal link exists between the subsidy and the profit increase
Foreign ownership not unique: Restricting subsidies based on foreign ownership would have been discriminatory and potentially contrary to investment treaties. Australia's economic policy has not restricted domestic subsidies by ownership nationality [3]
No illegal activity: AACo complied fully with JobKeeper rules and disclosure requirements. The CEO explicitly stated the payment was "appropriate" given April conditions, which is a reasonable position [1]
Comparative Context:
The real policy issue was not specific to AACo—it was systemic. Dozens of profitable ASX-listed companies retained JobKeeper payments [3]. The Senate Economics Committee launched an inquiry specifically titled "Coronavirus Economic Response Package Amendment (Ending JobKeeper Profiteering) Bill 2021," indicating parliament recognized this as a broader design problem requiring legislative response, not a case-by-case scandal [6].
Key context: This is not unique to the Coalition—no government designed wage subsidy schemes with perfect real-time clawback mechanisms. The US Paycheck Protection Program, UK Furlough Scheme, and all comparable international programs faced similar issues [5].
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The core facts are accurate: AACo received $6.7 million in JobKeeper, profits did increase substantially post-receipt, and the company is majority-owned by a Bahamas-based trust controlled by a foreigner. However, the claim implies impropriety that isn't fully supported:
- AACo's qualification was based on legitimate April 2020 disruption [1][2]
- The profit increase was driven by commodity prices, not subsidies [2]
- The foreign ownership element, while true, doesn't distinguish AACo from other JobKeeper recipients and reflects standard international investment practice [3]
- The systemic lack of clawback provisions affected dozens of companies, making this a policy design issue rather than an AACo-specific scandal [3][6]
The claim is politically useful but incomplete—it selectively highlights an uncomfortable fact (foreign-owned company profited while subsidized) without acknowledging the legitimate policy rationale or the broader systemic nature of the issue.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The core facts are accurate: AACo received $6.7 million in JobKeeper, profits did increase substantially post-receipt, and the company is majority-owned by a Bahamas-based trust controlled by a foreigner. However, the claim implies impropriety that isn't fully supported:
- AACo's qualification was based on legitimate April 2020 disruption [1][2]
- The profit increase was driven by commodity prices, not subsidies [2]
- The foreign ownership element, while true, doesn't distinguish AACo from other JobKeeper recipients and reflects standard international investment practice [3]
- The systemic lack of clawback provisions affected dozens of companies, making this a policy design issue rather than an AACo-specific scandal [3][6]
The claim is politically useful but incomplete—it selectively highlights an uncomfortable fact (foreign-owned company profited while subsidized) without acknowledging the legitimate policy rationale or the broader systemic nature of the issue.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (6)
-
1
Australia's largest pastoral landowner received $6.7m in jobkeeper as profits soared
AACo boss described payments as ‘appropriate’ despite operating profit of $23.5m in six months
the Guardian -
2
AACo posts a profit after a tough year, but shareholders won't see a dividend
Australia's biggest beef producer has posted an operating profit of $24.4 million – or $17.7m, excluding JobKeeper – but there won't be a dividend for shareholders.
Abc Net -
3
The ASX-listed companies keeping JobKeeper despite making profits
Smh Com
-
4
Joe Lewis (businessman)
En Wikipedia
-
5
Options to Support Incomes and Formal Employment During COVID-19
Imf
-
6
Coronavirus Economic Response Package Amendment (Ending Jobkeeper Profiteering) Bill 2021
On 24 June 2021, the Senate referred the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Amendment (Ending Jobkeeper Profiteering) Bill 2021 to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 August 2021. Submission for this inquiry closed on Friday, 3 September 202
Aph Gov
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.