I assume you're talking about this? I just read it.
My impression is that if you felt like it there is a valid complaint to be made. The article is presented as a news piece, but contains no substantial information except for the opinion of the adjunct lecturer they interviewed. MSD declined to comment, as did the employers in question. The emphasis on the employers' personal wealth is irrelevant really (employers are not being asked to pay out of pocket). The focus on historical scandals is really just stirring the pot if they can't actually substantiate that the businesses didn't legitimately meet the criteria for the subsidy and that the subsidy isn't being used correctly. So yeah, it boils down to the opinion that wealthy employers shouldn't get the subsidy (regardless of whether or not that wealth is tied up in the business or not?)
Shitty article. Should be written as an opinion piece and clearly labelled as such. But oh well. I still wouldn't characterise it as an attack.