Whyalla Steelworks

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (14:47): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, representing the Minister for Energy and Mining in the other place, yet another question about the Whyalla Steelworks.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: In September in this place, I revealed I had received information from an FOI application my office submitted through FOI expert and transparency warrior Rex Patrick, seeking all correspondence from the state government's Steel Task Force that relate to current and future steelmaking in Whyalla. That information contained nothing, nil, zilch—no documents exist, if you can believe that.

There is now another revelation. Just yesterday, Mr Patrick informed me of the results of his latest FOI seeking information about the steelworks, this time the royalties due to the government since 1 January this year to the end of September. Mr Patrick's application to the Department of Treasury specifically requested, and I quote:

Submissions, briefings, talking points, or correspondence provided by the Department to Treasurer Stephen Mullighan since 1 Jan 2024 relating to payment of mining royalties by GFG Alliance. [Date Range: 1 January 2024 to 27 September 2024.]

The freedom of information officer has advised, and again I quote:

…that following extensive searches conducted throughout the Department of Treasury and Finance, I have been unable to locate documents in scope of your [interest].

My questions to the minister are:

1. How is it possible that absolutely no correspondence exists between the government and GFG Alliance since 1 January this year about royalties—millions in royalties—due on top of the Steel Task Force having no records?

2. Given that GFG still owes who knows how many millions in royalties to the state government, do you support calls to the Premier by Senator Jacqui Lambie and Mr Patrick to place the Whyalla Steelworks into involuntary administration, so crucial and timely discussions about the future of the steelworks are taken away from Sanjeev Gupta and put in the hands of the state government?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (14:50): I thank the honourable member for his question. I will refer the question to the minister in the other place, but I might talk more generally about FOIs and how sometimes they can be characterised in a way that is not necessarily reflective of the accuracy. For example, I had an FOI directed to me or my department seeking correspondence between I think it was the Chief Veterinary Officer to myself. Now, of course, that turned up that there was no correspondence in the timeframe that was outlined—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —because the Chief Vet wouldn't directly correspond with me. They would go through the chief executive, and the chief executive to me. That is just one example of where—and I recall in that particular instance the opposition spokesperson decided to try to make a story out of that when, in fact, what she was revealing was that she doesn't understand some fairly basic lines of authority within a department.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Point of order.

The PRESIDENT: What is your point of order, the Hon. Mr Simms?

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: My point of order relates to relevance. I fail to see how this is relevant to the question the Hon. Mr Pangallo asked.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The reality is the question was about FOIs, and I am very interested to hear how sometimes FOIs are not answered, but I know that the minister is about to conclude, aren't you, minister?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, I am. Thank you, Mr President. I simply use that as one example of where the wording of an FOI request can actually mean that there will be no results forthcoming. It doesn't necessarily imply that there is no correspondence in existence of relevance to that matter, simply that the wording put forward by the requester of the FOI—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: —is not appropriate.