Treasurer Stephen Mullighan spends big on Whyalla steel in 2025-26 South Australian budget
The troubled Whyalla steelworks, law and order and a bold bid to bring the mammoth COP31 climate conference to Adelaide are the big winners from South Australia's pre-election budget.
Treasurer Stephen Mullighan has promised $650m over six years for the steel plant as part of a $2.4bn 'sovereign steel package' backed by the federal government.
In his speech to the state parliament on Thursday afternoon, Mr Mullighan outlined where the money would go and said the allocation would preserve the state's industrial capacity.
'Our unprecedented intervention to place the Whyalla steelworks into administration has protected thousands of jobs, hundreds of businesses and ensured Australia remains a country that manufactures critical steel products,' he said.
'Under this government, South Australians will not be taken for fools by fast-talking businessmen that continually break their promises to our state … the ($650m) funding is for administration costs, investment in the plant to support the sale and for a comprehensive rescue package that safeguards the Whyalla community.'
The state government took control of Whyalla from British steel magnate Sanjeev Gupta in February and administrators KordaMentha are working to secure a buyer for the integrated plant.
Before the shock takeover, the steelworks suffered losses for months and the government grew increasingly sceptical Mr Gupta's GFG Alliance would meet its debt obligations.
The steelworks is a core economic engine for Whyalla, a town of 22,000 people, and the state more broadly.
It is Australia's only fully integrated steelmaking enterprise, producing slabs, billets, hot rolled structural steel and rail products.
Thursday's budget comes about nine months before the Labor government, led by Premier Peter Malinauskas, will return to the polls in March next year.
In a pre-election pitch, Mr Mullighan said the budget preserved the state's industrial capacity, supported farmers battling through punishing drought conditions and demonstrated the government's 'sound financial management'.
'We are the lowest taxing state on the mainland,' Mr Mullighan said.
'And we have kept our promise not to introduce new taxes or increase existing ones.
'We've done all this while returning the budget to surplus and improving the state's credit rating outlook.'
The budget delivers a surplus of $179m for 2025-26 and forecasts a $369m surplus for 2026-27 and $458m for 2027-28.
Those figures are predicated on gross state product growth rates of 1.75 per cent for 2025-26, and then 2 per cent for both 2026-7 and 2027-28.
Net debt is expected to expand from $35.5bn in 2025-26 to $48.5bn in 2028-29.
Law and order is also a big winner, with the budget delivering $172m over six years to accommodate additional sworn officers.
The state aspires to have a total sworn force of 5000 officers by 2030-31.
'While crime rates have fallen over the course of this government, we continue to toughen laws, expand our prisons and equip our police and criminal justice system with the resources needed to combat crime,' he said.
'This budget provides the largest boost to police funding in the state's history.'
A bid to lure the COP31 climate conference to Adelaide is also a standout allocation, receiving $8.3m.
A $118m cost-of-living package includes a stark boost for students.
The price of student metro card 28-day passes, which are used across Adelaide's bus, rail and tram network, will tumble from $28.60 to just $10.
The change means a student catching public transportation will pay the equivalent of 25 cents a trip.
The Liberal Party, led by Opposition Leader Vincent Tarzia, said the budget demonstrated Labor was 'out of money and out of ideas'.
Mr Tarzia said the state was now confronting a 'debt iceberg', citing the $48.5bn figure as the largest in the state's history.
'The debt iceberg will sink the dreams of future South Australians' he said.
'What's abundantly clear is that Labor is completely out of touch with the needs of South Australians and instead, is frivolously whittling away taxpayer dollars on vanity projects that don't deliver any relief from sky-high energy prices, water bills and the housing crisis.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
16 minutes ago
- News.com.au
‘Beyond sick of it': Abbie Chatfield fires back at critics
Abbie Chatfield has addressed the controversies that erupted following her decision to speak out ahead of this year's federal election — and how she is 'often a scapegoat' to the 'demeaning' and 'deeply damaging' effects of being targeted by fellow feminists and far-right trolls. Chatfield used her platform to speak out about politics and the recent federal election in May. An Australian Electoral Commission inquiry was raised after collaborative social media posts between Chatfield and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, as well as former Greens leader Adam Bandt, were queried by Liberal Senator Jane Hume. The AEC ultimately concluded that Chatfield's posts did not require authorisation under electoral law. Listen to the full interview with Abbie Chatfield on Something To Talk About: Speaking to the Stellar podcast, Something To Talk About, Chatfield said: 'The AEC stuff was a whole other level of, I believe, discrediting smaller voices, but also discrediting outspoken young women'. 'It seems that when women do more than one thing, they're deemed as inept at all the things they do,' Chatfield told Something To Talk About, in a new episode released today. 'But when men do more than one thing it's like, wow, he's a footy player and he can read an autocue. 'The AEC thing made me feel really targeted. I feel I'm often a scapegoat because of how the media portrays me as being the spokesperson on things, and they go, 'Oh, she's talking again…'' Chatfield also addressed recent criticisms lobbed at her by prominent writer and feminist Clementine Ford, who accused her of 'profiting from the performance of being politically engaged' following an interview that Chatfield conducted with Albanese on her podcast. 'I feel like I'm in the middle of stories like that all the time. So it's kind of, unfortunately, my norm,' Chatfield told Something To Talk About. 'But it's never enjoyable or pleasant. This idea that because I'm not doing things perfectly, that I'm an idiotic narcissist, I don't know anything, I'm brain dead, I'm a deeply basic thinker – they're just insults. 'It's not actually critiquing my work. For more from Abbie Chatfield, listen to the full interview on Something To Talk About: 'It was really hurtful because then after that, the right-wing comments came in saying, 'Nothing better than a cat fight. Two feminists fighting. You can't even agree with each other!' 'And it's very demeaning. And that isn't Clementine's fault, but it is something that she should have considered, and that I have considered when I haven't called her out for things that I would say are deeply damaging.' In the Stellar cover story and podcast episode released today, Chatfield also opens up about her personal life and relationship with boyfriend Adam Hyde, and why she is in a better place when it comes to her life outside of work She issues a warning to women, saying they 'shouldn't date Trump supporters'.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
As the planet warms and liberal democracy is attacked, does the government care?
This warning was published in 1762: "As soon as man can disobey with impunity, his disobedience becomes legitimate." It comes from The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Rousseau's words inspired the French Revolution, and the American revolutionary war, and influenced the political and moral philosophy we call liberalism, on which modern Australian political society is based. The message contained in that warning is extremely important. If we want to live in a world in which individual human and civil rights mean anything, certain groups in society must not be allowed to behave with impunity. Why? Because if some groups can behave with impunity, and everyone else is forced to stand back and watch, it has a deeply corrosive effect on human culture. If they can behave with impunity, they'll keep pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with (who's going to stop them?), and their outrageous behaviour will become the new low "standard" for others to follow. It's obvious what that downward spiral in morality and ethics means for everyone. Do we believe freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to protest, and the media's right to tell the truth, are essential for a free society? If we do, then we can't allow privileged groups to dismantle those things in their effort to protect their "prerogative" to behave with impunity. When we let anyone hack away at those pillars of liberalism — and make it increasingly dangerous for individuals to tell the truth, to speak up, and to protest the abuse of power — what will happen to our "free society"? It will see illiberalism flourish. In some ways, the battle to protect important elements of liberal society has already been lost. In the 21st century, the right to privacy, which is essential to an individual's ability to speak freely in their own home, has been destroyed. The internet, which held so much promise in the 1990s, has been turned against us. It's become a tool to crush political dissent and compile lists of suspect individuals and their personal networks. The weaponisation of our data and AI technology is driving a rapid evolution in dystopian predictive policing and warfare. Some private companies operating at the frontier of this technology, like Palantir, are profiting from these developments. And we need to understand everything is connected. Take the environment, the very thing that sustains life on this planet. In December last year, researchers at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom released a study that showed Australian police are world leaders at arresting climate and environment protesters. It found more than 20 per cent of all climate and environment protests in Australia involved arrests, more than three times the global average. It showed Australia's political leaders had joined the "rapid escalation" of global efforts to criminalise and repress climate and environmental protest in recent years, while sovereign states globally were failing to meet their emissions targets and international agreements. It complemented other reports (here and here) that illuminated the links between political donations and lobbying from fossil fuel companies, governments writing harsher laws and penalties for activists, policing agencies being used to enforce the new laws, and legal systems and courts bedding the laws down. Think about how that phenomenon is connected to the global economic system. Specifically, consider the role the "price mechanism" is supposed to play in industrialised society. At the moment, we're watching a nasty global battle over an attempt by scientists and environmentalists to have the true costs of fossil fuels properly reflected in the market prices of the products fossil fuel companies sell to the world. If the true environmental, climate, and planetary costs of fossil fuels were really reflected in their prices, the price of petrol, gas and coal would be many multitudes higher than today's suppressed "market" prices. So the global fossil fuel industry is using every lever it can — political influence, legal systems, police forces, private security services, national armies, extra-judicial harassment and intimidation — to stop the true cost of their products being reflected in the market prices of their products. And climate and environmental activists and scientists are using every lever they can — research, letters to politicians, the legal system, protests, civil disobedience, and blockades — to have the true climate and planetary costs of fossil fuels reflected in their prices. Do we have a right to an inhabitable planet? It's not difficult to see how the battle over the price mechanism is deeply connected to the struggle to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples globally (including land rights, the right to cultural preservation, and participation in decision-making processes). Everything is connected. Last week, the climate analyst Ketan Joshi wrote a fiery article in Crikey that touched on many of these issues. It's really worth reading. Mr Joshi said the Albanese government's recent controversial decision to allow Woodside's North West Shelf gas project to continue operating until 2070 was a major blow to the climate movement and signified something sinister. He argued Labor was not a climate denier, it was something "far worse". He said if anyone in 2025 could work to worsen fossil fuel reliance in full acceptance of the consequences, without any willingness to work to prevent them, they were "far scarier" than climate deniers. "There isn't a great name for this, but we can call it "tactical fatalism": the intentional, weaponised insistence that a worse future is the only future (from those who benefit the most from whatever makes it bad)," he wrote. "The climate movement is ill-equipped to deal with a threat that looks like this. The easy binary of deniers vs believers died last decade. Any fantasy we had of a global moral pact of good intentions is dead. "This decade we are realising how much damage and death can be caused openly, without any shame. Genocidal countries know it, and the fossil fuel industry knows it, too. "A half-decade of wars, invasions, energy crises and a really nasty pandemic haven't been easy on our movement, and the tactical fatalist predators are circling." How do these sad political developments fit with the principles of "liberalism," where the right to speak freely, to tell the truth, and protest are supposed to be sacrosanct? In The Social Contract, Rousseau said when privileged groups can act with impunity we exist in a world where might is right. "And as the strongest is always right, the only problem is how to become the strongest," he wrote. Is that really the world we want to live in? Is that what younger Australians voted for?
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Table grapes undergo a variety revolution as tastes evolve
The introduction of sweeter table grapes in supermarkets is leaving old staples like Thompson Seedless behind. The Thompson green grapes have been a mainstay on the shelves, but new varieties such as Cotton Candy, Fire Crush, and Midnight Beauty are joining them. Enrique Rossi is overhauling his vineyard at Merbein, near Mildura in Victoria's north-west, moving from Crimson Seedless grapes to the newer proprietary varieties Allison and Ivory. Proprietary grapes refer to a specific name or brand, rather than a single variety, and there are more and more of them hitting the market. He said up to 70 per cent of grapes now being grown were new varieties. Mr Rossi was involved in bringing new grapes from the United States to Australia more than a decade ago. "Back then, there were five varieties," he said. "But today we are closer to 150 and still developing new ones. "Choosing is the risky part. By the time you get one in the ground and producing fruit, there could be another 51 breeds coming — you'll never be on top of the wave." The constant cycle of production is something he is worried will disproportionately affect smaller family farms like his own. "There will be a decrease in family-operated growers and the smaller to medium ones will disappear or merge," he said. On his vineyard at Euston, in south-western New South Wales, Joe Garreffa is transitioning away from Thompson grapes. He is the chair of the Robinvale & District Table Grape Growers Association and says growers have to respond to what buyers want. "There is increasing demand for these proprietary varieties and they have got a better taste, and that's what the consumer is chasing these days," he said. "These [new varieties] are a good thing, there is a lot of work involved with them. "They're a different vine and grow a little bit differently than the varieties we're used to. "The cost to grow these new varieties is higher, but the return on actual sales is also greater," Mr Garreffa said. Table Grape Australia Association chief executive Jeff Scott said he had noticed the shift away from traditional grapes. "Supermarkets are heading down the pathway of wanting newer varieties over traditional ones like the Thompson and Menindee," he said. "There are also growers who are now moving to these new varieties because they have a much higher yield and are more robust in terms of travel and presentation." Mr Scott said the change in the way table grapes were being sold could be seen in supermarkets. "If the supermarkets were to get a box of grapes and put them on the shelf they don't normally nominate the variety," Mr Scott said. "Traditionally, retail chains advertise grapes as reds, greens or blacks, but some of these proprietary varieties are coming in labelled-bunch bags." Supermarket giant Woolworths plans to "move away from select white and red grape varieties" from the start of August next year. A spokesperson for IGA said it sourced produce locally and did not capture overall data. Coles did not respond to questions.
