Whyalla Steelworks

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:08): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Treasurer a question about the Whyalla Steelworks.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yesterday, I raised concerns in Whyalla that several contractors were owed significant amounts of money, putting them at risk of collapse, because of GFG OneSteel's failure to pay their bills properly over the course of nearly two years. I am pleased to report that last night and today all outstanding bills have been met and, further, assurances were given that from July all bills would be paid on time. My question to the Treasurer is:

1. After question time yesterday, did you or your office contact GFG OneSteel regarding the outstanding payments of invoices?

2. Does immediate or prompt payment of outstanding invoices form part of the certain conditions imposed on GFG OneSteel to allow it to access the $50 million in state government funding and possibly more?

3. Is there any significance to the July promise, and what does the government consider are appropriate terms for prompt payment of invoices?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:10): The answer to the first question is no, I didn't, nor did my office, contact GFG. But I think, given the long nature of the discussions that have gone on, it would be no surprise to GFG and its managers as to the attitude of the South Australian government and the South Australian Treasurer in relation to the prompt or reasonable payment of suppliers to GFG. That would not be a surprise. I think in the answer I gave yesterday I did refer to the fact that a number of other government authorities, if I might refer to the Small Business Commissioner in that broad descriptor, had been actively engaged in the past in relation to ensuring prompt payment.

Certainly from the government's viewpoint—and this is not related specifically to GFG—we obviously would urge all major industries and businesses to pay promptly and within a reasonable period of time their suppliers and their small businesses, because the cash flow for small and medium size enterprises is much more dependent, in some cases, on the prompt payment or reasonable payment of big businesses such as this particular business. But my comments there don't relate solely to GFG, they relate to a number of big businesses.

Certainly, the Small Business Commissioner and the Australian small business commissioner, if that is her correct title—Kate Carnell—both indicated on behalf of small businesses that the previous payment arrangements were not reasonable in relation to GFG's approach.

In relation to the commercial negotiations—and we hope ultimately negotiations and discussions which do lead to a long-term, viable steel industry in Whyalla and in South Australia—I don't propose to go into the detail publicly of the negotiating position of the South Australian government. What I will indicate is two things. One is, as we have done in a number of areas—Nyrstar is an example and others—we are obviously mindful that we are the custodians of the taxpayers' money. Secondly, we are also there in the interests of trying to ensure ongoing protection of jobs for workers, families and others in whatever industry sector we might happen to be working in at the point in time. It is no different in relation to GFG, Whyalla and steel.

In relation to the payment for small and medium-sized enterprises, whilst I won't comment on our negotiations I did put on the public record that the South Australian government, again on behalf of taxpayers, had been generous in relation to some of the small businesses who did have loans from the former government and who were suffering cash flow problems as a result of a number of issues, also including COVID-19, importantly—that we had been generous on behalf of the taxpayers in relation to deferred payment of those particular loans.