Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance, $4,403,410,000

The Electoral Commission of South Australia, $41,799,000

Administered Items for the Electoral Commission of South Australia, $588,000

Legislative Council, $6,077,000

House of Assembly, $8,759,000

Joint Parliamentary Services, $20,555,000

Administered Items for the Joint Parliamentary Services, $4,342,000

Minister:

Hon. K.J. Maher, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr M. Sherry, Electoral Commissioner, Electoral Commission of South Australia.

Ms A. Cashen, Deputy Electoral Commissioner, Electoral Commission of South Australia.

Ms L. Tisma, Manager, Finance, Electoral Commission of South Australia.

Mr R. Crump, Clerk, House of Assembly.

Ms M. Bradman, Manager, Joint Parliamentary Services.

Ms C. Freeman, Director, Organisational Performance, Department of Treasury and Finance.

Mr T. Smith, Manager, Policy and Entitlements, Electorate Services, Department of Treasury and Finance.

The ACTING CHAIR: Welcome back, everybody. When the minister is ready, we will move on to the portfolios of the Electoral Commission of South Australia, the Legislative Council, the House of Assembly, Joint Parliamentary Services and Electorate Services. The minister will be appearing in his role as Special Minister of State. I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the minister to make a statement, if he wishes, and introduce his new advisers.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Thank you, Chair. I have no statement, but I shall introduce the people who have joined me here for this final session today. To my immediate left is Mick Sherry, the Electoral Commissioner in South Australia. To his left is Alice Cashen, the Deputy Electoral Commissioner. To my right is Connie Freeman, Director of Organisational Performance at the Department of Treasury and Finance. Behind me we have Megan Bradman, Manager, Joint Parliamentary Services; Rick Crump, Clerk, House of Assembly; Luba Tisma, Manager, Finance, Electoral Commission of South Australia; and Tony Smith, Manager, Policy and Entitlements, Department of Treasury and Finance.

The ACTING CHAIR: Thank you. Member for Heysen, do you have an opening statement? No? Straight to questions?

Mr TEAGUE: Straight to questions.

The ACTING CHAIR: Any indication of the order you want to do this in? They are all there, so—

Mr TEAGUE: Provided it is not necessitating an instant move of personnel, I have a couple of questions about Electorate Services and then I flag that I will go to Electoral Commission SA for a bit. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 146. The Agency Statement has covered itself in glory this year because the whole Special Minister of State side has regularised itself. We see there is no doubt about it, minister: the minister is the minister responsible for Electorate Services, which is program 1 within DTF.

I go to the program summary that is about halfway down page 146, where we see expenses, and I am also paying attention to FTEs. The budget for 2025-26 in terms of employee benefit expenses is up on the estimated result for 2024-25 in the order of $531,000, and that is despite a 0.1 FTE reduction. Is there an explanation for that? Is there a single cause or multiple causes and, if so, what are they?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We do not have information before us about a 10 per cent increase in employee benefit expenses, but I am happy to take that on notice and bring back a reply.

Mr TEAGUE: That might be the whole answer, but can I just press it to the point of: is the minister able to at least identify to the committee if that is the result of an increase in payments to employees who are employed and/or is it characterised by redundancies and employees leaving?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We do not have those figures but, as I say, I am happy to take it on notice.

Mr TEAGUE: It could include one or both of those?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, without the figures—

Mr TEAGUE: So limiting ourselves then to matters of principle, in terms of the accounting process, those are both in the nature of employee benefit expenses; is that correct?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, how these redundancies are treated in an accounting way, I am happy to take on notice and bring back what it is in this particular case.

Mr TEAGUE: So to be clear: we do not know what the $531,000 relates to?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The difference between those two figures?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, the $531,000.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is exactly what I am going to take on notice.

Mr TEAGUE: We do not know what it relates to and we also do not know, indeed, whether or not it might include one or both of employee payments and/or redundancy payments?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Once again, I would not want to speculate and inadvertently mislead the committee.

Mr TEAGUE: I would not want you to either. We do not know.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to take that away.

Mr TEAGUE: That is why I thought I would ask early. If an answer emerges in the course of the next 45 minutes, then I would be happy to be interrupted to come back to that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am always happy to interrupt you, shadow attorney-general.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you very much, Attorney. So parking that for the moment, but only parking it from my point of view and perhaps leaving it on the road as far as the minister and those here are concerned, I turn then to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 12, and over to ECSA. We see the agency, the Electoral Commission of South Australia, commencing at page 9, and by the time we get to page 12 we first see the objective, the ministerial responsibilities and the description of the administered items.

I might turn more particularly to page 13 and the program net cost of services summary. In the table that immediately follows there is one program, Electoral Services and, unsurprisingly, there is a significant increase in the 2025-26 budget up from $7.5 million estimated result this year to $39,838,000 for the budgeted year and that is apparently for the purpose of the 2026 state election.

ECSA is also responsible for public funding of election campaigns for participating individuals and parties and for special assistance funding for the reimbursement of administrative costs under 'new regime'. Bearing that in mind, under the new funding regime for political parties that is going to take effect from 1 July, will ECSA be managing that and those relevant payments?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In terms of the administration funding that the member referred to, I am advised that applications after six months of operation, so at the end of the year, are put into the Electoral Commission. My advice as to how the process is intended to work is that they will assess those applications and then seek funding from Treasury for that administration funding.

Mr TEAGUE: So the increase in funding for ECSA that we see there in the table—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The table at the top of page 13? Which table are we—

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, the table towards the top of page 13, that one line item, Electoral Services. Does that increase in funding include any of the public funding? If so, what amount?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, no, that does not. That will be separately sought from Treasury.

Mr TEAGUE: This might relate to the work that comprises what is more or less in line with the 2024-25 budget to the estimated results; it is a minor increase over budget, but within that range. Has ECSA done any work on what expected public funding will look like, as well as the recurring administrative cost of that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We will maybe deal with those separately. Should we do public funding first?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Under the new legislation that parliament has passed, there is public funding that is public funding that can be in advance and then the remainder of public funding after an election. I will get some advice about both of those elements. I have been advised that there has been some very preliminary work undertaken in relation to public funding. Although there might be some advanced public funding that can be derived from past results, the entirety of public funding will be dependent on results at that particular election.

You also asked about administration funding. I am advised, in relation to the total quantum of administration funding, there has been some very initial work that has been undertaken, but, as I said, there will be claims that will be put in after the first six months of the new scheme, which starts on 1 July—so six months away, at the end of this calendar year—participants will put in their claims for administrative funding that will be assessed by ECSA and then asked of Treasury.

Mr TEAGUE: Still with an eye to that table and the funding for 2025-26, $39,833,000, none of that amount is funding for distribution; we have that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is my advice; that is the amount that it costs on a yearly basis for everything ECSA does, plus, as you know, it is a very significant increase because it is an election year and running a state election is a very expensive proposition.

Mr TEAGUE: In terms of ECSA's administrative burden and in terms of this new public funding scheme, perhaps by reference to work done and/or preparation for the cost of enforcement, has ECSA done any work in the course of this last year and, if so, at what cost, on enforcement compliance for the changes to be applied on 1 July?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice for the financial year that is about to end, 2024-25, is that there is an estimated just under $50,000 for the requirements to prepare for the new funding disclosure, administrative funding, public funding, compliance and enforcement, because—it is not in yet—that rises to in between $900,000 and $1 million after that, once all elements of the new regime come into operation.

Mr TEAGUE: That means this coming year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. I am advised that the indicative figures are for 2025-26, $949,000, and for 2026-27, $967,000. Then going forward for 2027-28, dropping down I presume post election and post having to make all the calculations for public funding to $729,000, and for 2028-29, $740,000.

Mr TEAGUE: I am just seeing where that sounds in terms of any more specific reference in the papers. Is that more particularly—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The amounts that I have just given?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, the amounts that have just been given, are they more particularly set out? If so, I have missed it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, this is advice that I have been able to give you over and above what is set out in the budget papers in response to your question.

Mr TEAGUE: I understand that. If so, if we are to find where those costs, particularly for 2025-26 obviously, are to be drawn from, are we drawing them from the $39,833,000?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that these funds are held by Treasury, like the funds for the administration payments to the parties and for the public funding held by Treasury, and to be released to ECSA.

Mr TEAGUE: So the whole thing, including—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The costs of administering it and the actual payments themselves are not within the $39 million is my advice.

Mr TEAGUE: If and when and to whatever extent those questions are asked of the Treasurer, then the Treasurer will be able to identify that there is an outsourced service to be provided by ECSA at Treasury's cost for the administration, including of compliance and enforcement?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: And the actual payments themselves. That is the advice.

Mr TEAGUE: The payments themselves clearly are in a separate category, but we are just focused on ECSA, and so whatever resources ECSA needs to do oversight, administration, compliance enforcement, you name it—all those activities for which it is responsible—then we will see ECSA drawing on DTF funds that are not identified in ECSA's budget papers at all?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is they will be reflected in ECSA's budget papers going forward but, as this is all relatively new, it has not been transferred to ECSA's budget yet while they work out exactly what is needed. I am giving you indicative costs of ECSA at the moment.

Mr TEAGUE: Those indicative costs, are they drawn from anywhere that might be revealed—just for coherence and reference—in anything within the rest of DTF's—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not responsible for that part of the budget.

Mr TEAGUE: I know that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not sure I could provide much guidance for that.

Mr TEAGUE: I appreciate that. We are not, as it were, at the point of being able to find those costs on the face of, or set out as a line item, anywhere that the minister is aware of, and certainly—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, it is not that—I just could not tell you. It is not in my budget, in my area within the budget.

Mr TEAGUE: That is helpful.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Where it is accounted for, that is not a question I have an answer for you.

Mr TEAGUE: Sure, but it is helpful to the extent that you are not going to find it in the ECSA budget provision.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Not this year but, as I have said, my advice is the intention is you will find it in the ECSA budget going into the future.

Mr TEAGUE: It will therefore be in the old reversion to the normal administrative year-on-year. It might be regarded as an anticipated addition on the $7.5 million or so that it is usually running at, this administrative compliance and enforcement.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There are new streams of administrative funding that is past paid, so you would presume that it will reflect that—we talked about it in other hearings—baseline, essentially, for the agency.

Mr TEAGUE: Staying with the same table, there is an estimated result for 2024-25 that is $160,000 or so over the 2024-25 budget.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Which one is this?

Mr TEAGUE: Same table, same line.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: At the top of page 13?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. Focused on the 2024-25 year and comparing the budget to the estimated result—and we have a variance of about $160,000—I might just ask: is there any particular cause for that overspend, estimated result in excess of budgeted amount?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The estimated result being $166,000 above what was forecast in the budget?

Mr TEAGUE: What was budgeted.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What was budgeted? What does that $166,000 make up?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: One of the reasons could be—and this is another one I might need to take on notice for that small variance—the Black by-election that occurred in that year that funding was provided and there was an underspend in there. That may be a possible explanation, but I am happy to go away and see whether there is any further information. I commend the member for not using the term 'budget blowout' for this $166,000.

Mr TEAGUE: It sort of tends towards it. I would not have guessed that—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It is quite a small variance.

Mr TEAGUE: I would not have guessed that was the cause, but rather more substantial items. Of course, there was the fairly high-profile piece of litigation that was the result of the challenge to the 2022 Adelaide City Council election. That went for some time and resulted in part of the election being declared void, and it is all public record. By reference to that discrete excess amount, is that in any way an answer? In any event, what was the total cost to ECSA of that whole exercise, including ECSA being represented in the Court of Disputed Returns, and so on?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it is over a number of financial years in the order of $500,000 in total for investigation and legal representation services. The new election is paid for by the Adelaide City Council—that is not paid for by Electoral Commission SA—and it is the Central Ward election to be held on 25 August. The approximate cost, subject to the number of postal vote returns, to be borne by the City of Adelaide will be about $85,000.

Mr TEAGUE: But ECSA will administer it?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, ECSA administers it, but like general local government elections it is paid for by those bodies whose elections they are.

Mr TEAGUE: Will there be any cost to ECSA of administering that election?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is no, that it is essentially full cost recovery for conducting that election.

Mr TEAGUE: Cost recovery in addition to the $85,000?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, sorry, cost recovery for the $85,000. ECSA do not pay for it. They are reimbursed for the conduct of the election, but the amounts for legal costs and investigation costs for the litigation that precedes this election are borne by ECSA.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, I understand that. I am just focused on the supplementary election. The supplementary election will cost about $85,000. ECSA will bear that and then seek reimbursement from the Adelaide City Council of the whole amount?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As is the usual course of any local government election.

Mr TEAGUE: Is there any work for ECSA to do to prevent or avert such circumstances as that dispute occurring in the future and, if so, is it doing it? Is there anything for ECSA to do?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, I am happy to say that I am advised that there are integrity measures that ECSA is implementing for the upcoming City of Adelaide Central Ward election to be held, as I said, on 25 August. Things in place include that City of Adelaide staff are carefully examining each voters roll application that is received. Ballot packs are only sent to electors on the voters roll. ECSA staff will check that the name on the returned declaration envelope matches the enrolled elector and that the signature matches the name. Where required, ECSA staff will check the signature on the returned envelope against the signature on enrolment forms and also contact electors to confirm their vote. So there are significant integrity measures, I am advised, being put in place following this.

Mr TEAGUE: Having traversed the cost of the litigation borne by ECSA, the cost of the supplementary election that will be borne by ECSA and then reimbursed to ECSA by Adelaide City Council, are those measures that have been just described adding to the cost otherwise of that supplementary election, in part, perhaps?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that, no, this does not add significantly to the cost.

Mr TEAGUE: So it is not rendering an election more costly on each occasion?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is no, it is not.

Mr TEAGUE: So it is the application of measures with the object of avoiding the vulnerability to such a dispute in the future?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, that is my advice.

Mr TEAGUE: What cost do they come at?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The measures I have outlined? My advice is at no significant extra cost.

Mr TEAGUE: Still at Budget Paper 4, Volume 2 and still at page 13 for the key agency outputs, the first dot point is the conducting of elections for representatives to be members of the Local First Nations Voice, and I think, more particularly, or at least also, referred to in Sub-program 1.2: Non-parliamentary Electoral Services at page 17. The second dot point highlight for 2024-25 is the conducting of two First Nations Voice supplementary elections. Perhaps by reference to the dot point item at page 17, what was the cost of conducting the two First Nations Voice supplementary elections?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the two supplementary elections, I am advised total funding provided was $386,000, although actual costs ended up being $247,000, so it was just under $250,000 for two supplementary elections. That would be $125,000 approximately for each one, which compares very favourably to the three by-elections that we have seen for the House of Assembly. I think the Black by-election was some $682,000, and I am advised that both the Dunstan and Bragg by-elections were more expensive than that.

Mr TEAGUE: We have just addressed the cost, perhaps for the completeness of recent references, of the supplementary election in the Adelaide City Council in the order of $85,000. Presumably, the logistics contribute. If one were to compare Adelaide City Council's supplementary election with a Voice supplementary election, logistics and distance and the rest contribute to the $40,000 difference.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Certainly, I know in previous discussions that I have had with the Electoral Commission, when you go out to regional areas, yes, everything you do in an election tends to cost that little bit more.

Mr TEAGUE: Am I right in drawing at least a broad comparison: $85,000 for the Adelaide City Council supplementary and about $125,000 for a First Nations Voice supplementary election?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will give another comparison: the $123,500 on average for a First Nations supplementary election compared with three-quarters of a million dollars for the three Liberal members who have left their seats. In that comparison, the First Nations Voice elections cost a fraction of what each by-election has cost when a Liberal member has left a seat so far in this term.

Mr TEAGUE: In terms of that analysis, then, if we are to embark on it, how many electors were eligible to participate in those supplementary elections?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have figures in terms of the number. One thing we do know, though, is we do not have complete figures. When people enrol, there is not a box that is ticked in terms of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander identification. We do not have a figure to tell you, 'This is what the roll is,' because it is not something that has been collected consistently. There is no roll so that you can say, 'This percentage voted,' because it is not something that is collected when people tick a box on a form.

Mr TEAGUE: In terms of the first overall election, am I right that that data is not retained, therefore, as a comparator? Not that anyone expected the supplementary election, but is there not even a comparator that is available?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have figures, but there may be 'this many' people voted at the first election and 'this many' people voted in the same geographic region for the second one. Without having figures in front of me, my guess would be in a supplementary election you would see fewer people voting, which tends to follow what happens also for state elections at a general election. For the seat of Bragg, Dunstan or Black, you would ordinarily expect more to vote at a state election when there is greater awareness than you would expect at a by-election in the future.

Mr TEAGUE: So it is not known how many voters were eligible to participate?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There is no tick in a box on a form that the AEC has when you enrol.

Mr TEAGUE: It is not known how many were eligible, including by reference to the election that had occurred? It is just a question of clarification. There is no retention of a form of roll based on what has occurred previously?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If the question is: is a roll kept of those who have voted before and then added to for those who vote at the next one—

Mr TEAGUE: Or compared against?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, that is not done.

Mr TEAGUE: Can the minister advise the committee how many votes were cast at those elections?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised it was about 2,600 at the initial First Nations Voice elections. For the contested election for the supplementary election it was about 150 votes.

Mr TEAGUE: That is 150 votes in total for both?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There was only one that was contested.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Although it would be misleading to say you do not apportion costs to the non-contested one, because of course you do a whole lot of work setting it up and getting ready.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes. But the minister is satisfied that in terms of apportionment they are about equal in terms of the cost of preparation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have those figures. As I said, I do have the figure for the actual cost for both of them, the non-contested one and the work that was necessarily involved in doing that and the contested one, which was $247,000. My guess is that the contested one might have been a greater portion of that, but I do not have those figures.

Mr TEAGUE: I have sort of gone there a little bit, but in terms of comparing the supplementary elections to the original elections, is there anything for the future that ECSA has acquired in terms of capacity, knowledge, expertise and so on in order to apply towards the next such occasion? If it does not include any reference material, is it a matter of a novel endeavour?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can say, because, as you would expect, I have had the benefit of discussions with the Electoral Commissioner about these elections, certainly I think in previous discussions the advice has been that there has been significant amounts learnt by the Electoral Commission in a whole range of areas, including working with Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations, particularly in remote and regional areas.

I remember a statistic that just under half—something like 46 or 47 per cent—of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people live outside the Adelaide metropolitan area, which is a much higher proportion of people outside of the area than for non Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander South Australians. Working with different groups, ACCOs and others, certainly I know it is something that ECSA did to a great extent during the first election, but of course lessons will be learnt about how to do that better.

Mr TEAGUE: I do not know if 'better' is the right word, but in terms of the way that has become familiar locally and so on, there is the matter of staffing polling booths, and ECSA has a whole variety of ways of doing that for elections of all different kinds. To what extent is ECSA staff travelling around the state for the purposes of these elections in a way that it may need to do less of as the process becomes more familiar?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I guess there are two elements to that. I am advised that ECSA is starting up awareness and education campaigns shortly in relation to the second lot of First Nations Voice elections. But for these second elections, polling places and polling officials will be utilised the same as on polling day, so there will be a great deal of synergies able to take place, as state election polling places and polling officials are there in any event to conduct the general election in March 2026 in South Australia to be utilised for First Nations polling as well.

Mr TEAGUE: In the minutes remaining, I might just head back to page 146 of Volume 4 and spend a few moments back on Electorate Services. I will start by going back to where I left that question. I appreciate the minister took it on notice, but there has also been a half-hour or so—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have not had any notes passed to me, I am afraid.

Mr TEAGUE: So the question as to the reason for the $531,000 in additional employee benefit expenses, notwithstanding a 0.1 downward FTE, is a matter that the minister has taken on notice, just in case there was anything to add while we are here.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I say, I am happy to take it on notice.

Mr TEAGUE: Alright. I think perhaps most conveniently at page 146, who is the current manager of Electorate Services and when did the current manager begin in that position?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised Lisa Samarzia holds that position. I am advised she was acting in that position and was formally appointed to the role very late last year or very early this year.

Mr TEAGUE: What happened to the previous one?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There was, I am advised, previously a long-term manager in that position. In between that and Lisa coming in, there was someone who was in there for only a couple of months, then Lisa took over the position as acting and has since started ongoing late last year or early this year.

Mr TEAGUE: What was the period of that short-term—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised it was a matter of months.

Mr TEAGUE: Does that previous manager still work in Electorate Services?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised no.

Mr TEAGUE: Were the circumstances of departure voluntary or otherwise?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that we do not discuss individual employment matters of specific individuals, but I am advised that the person who was in there for a short amount of time has taken up other opportunities.

Mr TEAGUE: In terms of staff turnover in the last 12 months, how many staff have left Electorate Services and for what reasons?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Making up those 40 are the driver fleet; we do not have information in relation to that. Outside the driver fleet, there are 14 FTEs in the actual Electorate Services team and I am advised that the turnover was about two.

Mr TEAGUE: And the circumstances of the turnover of those two is something that you are not talking about?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. As I say, with individual employment matters, we would not traverse anything.

Mr TEAGUE: Still on page 146, turning to the highlights, I go to the first dot point which is the negotiation of a new enterprise agreement for assistants to members of the South Australian parliament. That is described as a highlight. I have not cross-checked it against any associated target, but my understanding is that the EBA negotiations are still ongoing.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is right. They are in an advanced stage, but still ongoing.

Mr TEAGUE: So is there a need to revise the highlight to describe it in terms of it being in the present tense?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Maybe. Instead of 'negotiated' it might be 'negotiating'—that may be a way to describe it. But it is—

Mr TEAGUE: It is not quite complete.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes.

Mr TEAGUE: When is it going to be complete? Would you therefore describe the current state of it as delayed? Was this all prepared? The budget papers are prepared in circumstances where it is anticipated that this would be complete—

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, I think that is just wording. I do not think that there was an anticipation that this was definitely going to be completed, and then it went to print and then it was not completed. I know this is ongoing. It is at an advanced stage. I think there has already been one vote on a potential agreement. It is one of those ones that is at an advanced stage but is not complete now.

Mr TEAGUE: Would you describe it as a delay at this point?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, I would not use that at all. In my now three-and-a-bit years' experience as industrial relations minister—we went through quite a number of agreements that are up for negotiation at the moment, and it used to be three years but it is now a maximum of four years that agreements can run—every term of parliament, every agreement will come up. I would not describe this as a delay or anything that is particularly different from other agreements.

Mr TEAGUE: Has any particular industrial organisation raised any concerns regarding the EBA process or its terms?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For assistants?

Mr TEAGUE: Yes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It would not surprise the member that unions will regularly meet with ministers and put forward their views, whether it is firefighters, ambulance officers, doctors, teachers or others in a whole range of areas. I think many members are represented by the ASU. I am sure I have had representation from the ASU, as I have talked to them about a whole range of other matters: who they represent and issues to do with local government and portable long service leave. If the member is asking whether concerns have been raised that this is completely outside of how all other negotiations are going, no, that certainly has not been raised.

The ACTING CHAIR: Alas, the allotted time has expired. The examination of the Electoral Commission SA and its administered items, the House of Assembly, Joint Parliamentary Services and its administered items, and the Legislative Council is complete. The examination of the proposed payments for the Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance is adjourned until tomorrow. Thank you to the minister and the witnesses.

At 15:16 the committee adjourned to Wednesday 25 June 2025 at 09:00.