Chris Corrigan: Four Corners proof ABC wants to bash big business

Chris Corrigan says Four Corners episode “completely misunderstands” the Murray-Darling scheme.

The Murray River in Tocumwal, NSW. Picture: Hollie Adams.

One of Australia’s leading businessmen, Chris Corrigan, has accused the ABC of “wanting to bash big business” and of “completely misunderstanding” the Murray-Darling water scheme.

Mr Corrigan — who rose to fame during the 1998 Waterfront dispute when he fought with unionists as head of Patrick Corporation — is now the chairman of Webster Limited, an irrigation company that Four Corners this week reported received up to $40m of taxpayers money as part of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

The ABC report, aired on Monday night, said Commonwealth funds meant to return water to the environment had instead gone to planting cotton and nut fields along the threatened river system.

The report has angered farming groups including the National Farmers Federation, the National Irrigators Council, Cotton Australia, the Ricegrowers Association, NSW Farmers, NSW Irrigators and AgForce Queensland, who are preparing to make a formal complaint to the ABC.

MORE: Farmer groups angered by ABC | Comment: Steady trickle of fibs on Four Corners

Mr Corrigan escalated the furore over the report, claiming today that the ABC’s targeting of Webster was proof it wanted to attack big business and did not understand how the scheme, which had been introduced by Labor, was primarily taken up by family farms.

“The whole of the ABC report showed a complete misunderstanding of the Murray-Darling system works,” Mr Corrigan told ABC radio.

“This is not a controversial scheme, it’s only controversial in the eyes of the ABC and a small gaggle of discontents.

“Another great example of the ABC wanting to bash big business … we have less than one half of a one percent of that (Murray-Darling) program … how does that make a centrepiece of this story?

“This program was directed, 75 per cent of it went to family farms. It’s just a complete misunderstanding of the whole exercise of what’s going on here.”

Mr Corrigan told ABC radio Webster has taken less water from the system, not more, due to the Basin Plan and that only more than $17m of the $40m Webster received from the government was considered a government grant as the rest was water rights it sold during a hard-fought negotiation.

He also said this morning that Webster’s sale of water rights was not part of an open tender because it had to negotiate the end of a profitable cotton growing business in Tandou as a result of the sale.

More information on the reporting behind last night's important Four Corners investigation "Cash Splash". https://t.co/lWmkxIJSVi

— ABC Communications (@ABCMediaComms) July 9, 2019

Four Corners reporter Sean Rubinzstein-Dunlop took to Twitter this morning to contradict Mr Corrigan’s claims about the nature of Commonwealth funds Webster has received and argued the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is not transparent.

“Corrigan claimed the money it received from the taxpayer is not a grant — the Commonwealth Govt calls it a grant,” the Four Corners reporter tweeted.

“Corrigan said Webster only received $18.8m under the scheme. No. Webster received $41m and traded in $22m worth of water licences. This is how the funding is counted under the scheme. The taxpayer provided $ for dams so that it could store water it was unable to access earlier.

“This funding was received under a $5.6b taxpayer funded scheme in which the taxpayer cannot get access to simple information about who received the money and what it payed for ... And the Government is NOT measuring the impacts each project has on the river system and the farming communities the scheme is designed to protect.”

1) Corrigan claimed the money it received from the taxpayer is not a grant - the Commonwealth Govt calls it a grant...

— Sean R-Dunlop (@seanrubinsztein) July 9, 2019

3) Corrigan said the new dams which store 30 billion litres of water only store “tailings” - water runoff from its farms. Webster’s own environmental impact statements say the dams store “supplementary water” - water from heavy rain events which it was unable to access before ...

— Sean R-Dunlop (@seanrubinsztein) July 9, 2019

This funding was received under a $5.6b taxoayer funded scheme in which the taxpayer cannot get access to simple information about who received the money and what it payed for...

— Sean R-Dunlop (@seanrubinsztein) July 9, 2019

Recipients of the grants surrender a portion of their water entitlements, as we repeatedly made clear in the story; however no measurements are being carried out of whether the taxpayer funded projects are depleting the amount the scheme aims to return to the rivers.

— Sean R-Dunlop (@seanrubinsztein) July 9, 2019

Farmers’ groups have lashed out at Four Corners since the program aired, with NFF president Fiona Simson accusing the ABC of wanting to “unravel” the Basin Plan and force a royal commission into the water scheme.

Mr Corrigan backed in the argument of farmers’ groups that the program did not address how much water has gone back into the river system under the Basin Plan.

“What the program failed to explain to the listeners is that the amount of water that you can take out of the system has got nothing with how many dams you have or how much land you have. It has to do with what water licenses, and those water licenses are bought on the market.

“The highest priority goes to the towns and people, the second priority goes to the environment … and the third whatever’s left is allocated in accordance with these licenses to irrigation. So you can’t possibly be taking out more than the license you own. I don’t care how many dams you’ve got.”

Mr Corrigan — who has made donations to the Liberal Party — denied he had ever discussed water rights with a politician of any party.

The ABC defended the program yesterday against an onslaught of attacks from farming groups, and said it interviewed up to 15 farmers, former Murray-Darling officials and water experts.

“The aim of the story was to speak with people who have first-hand evidence of ow the grants scheme is operating,’’ a spokeswoman said. “It drew on a wide cross-section of the community affected by the scheme.’’