VALUATION OF LAND (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:10): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Valuation of Land Act 1971. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:10): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

As members would know, I am a former valuer-general and have been working in the valuation field for about 40 years. I have seen many changes to the law in this time, and not all of them for the better. This bill aims to clarify and fix some areas in the Valuation of Land Act 1971, the interpretation of which I think leads to unfairness and inequality in valuation and consequently in rates and taxes.

It also seeks to reintroduce some measures which were put in place in the 1970s and through to the mid 1990s by both Labor and Liberal governments but which were subsequently removed in the late 1990s by the then Liberal government on what I believe was ill-conceived advice from the then deputy valuer-general and others. This bill is also intended to cut red tape and eliminate bureaucratic processes which have been progressively introduced over the past 10 years or so and which unnecessarily frustrate an owner or occupier's right to achieve justice in the valuation system.

The purpose of the amendments in clause 3 of the bill is to ensure that the Valuer-General's valuations are relative to one another, thus satisfying the long accepted principle of fairness and equity in the valuation, rating and taxing base. My office has been contacted by several constituents who have objected to their valuations because they considered them too high. In many cases the Valuer-General decided not to reduce their valuation and provided sales evidence to support the valuation. However, when I requested the valuations for those properties used as sales evidence, the valuations were much lower than the sale price. For example, a constituent with a property in Kadina with a value of $400,000 was provided with the sale of a comparable property of $395,000 in support of his valuation. The valuation on this comparable property was $180,000, or less than half.

Clause 3 is based around a provision in the Western Australian Valuation of Land Act where relativity, or coordination, as it is called there, has been considered when valuing properties very successfully. It is my understanding that other jurisdictions do take relativity into account, even though it is not expressly written in their legislation. In my discussions with the Valuer-General he has mentioned that accuracy in valuation will lead to relativity. However, this has not been my experience. For example, I have heard of two identical properties in the same street or even side by side which have significantly different values, and therefore one pays higher council rates than the other. This is neither fair nor equitable and demonstrates clearly that accuracy of valuation is not being maintained.

The amendments to sections 22A and 22B of the act in clauses 4 and 5 of the bill will clarify and refine the application of notional or actual use valuations for heritage listed properties to ensure that they receive the valuation concession intended by the original legislation introduced by the Labor government in September 1985. This ensures that the properties retain their character for as long as possible, rather than being forced into subdivision and progressively sold off as a result of ever increasing rates and taxes.

Clause 7 inserts a new provision into the legislation to entitle owners and occupiers to receive information at no cost from the Valuer-General, such as sales information being used by the Valuer-General when making the valuation. It is a basic principle of open government that, where the government or a government authority makes a decision that affects a person, that person is entitled to the reasons why that decision has been made. The current practice of the Valuer-General is to provide people with sales evidence once a formal objection has been lodged and a decision made.

This amendment provides that a person may at any time, either before or after lodging an objection, request information, that is, sales evidence for other comparable properties in support of their valuation. This provision is not ideal as I know there may be an additional administrative burden on the Office of the Valuer-General as a result. However, the information already exists and is used initially to determine the valuation. My amendment simply makes this information accessible to members of the public at no cost to them.

In discussions with the Western Australian Valuer-General, his view was that it was more important for owners to discuss their valuation with valuers before consideration is given to an objection. Past experience has shown that, where this occurs, the number of formal objections reduces. This is a necessary amendment, given the number of people who are dissatisfied with their valuations and who would like some understanding of the basis on which the value of their property is determined.

In Canada there is a system whereby ratepayers can have access to information regarding sales in their area online and free of charge. This was one of the recommendations made for changes to the South Australian legislation to come out of a report prepared for me by Anastasia Krivenkova, a participant in the parliamentary internship program at the University of Adelaide.

Clause 6 provides that owner/occupiers are to be advised of their right to obtain this information. This advice is to appear on their notice of valuation, which appears on their rating bills. The last amendment, contained in clause 8, abolishes the mandatory 60-day limit to lodge an objection to a valuation, and it will allow an owner or occupier to object at any time. It also allows an objection to be made to a valuation if it is not considered relative to other properties of similar worth. When this amendment was originally introduced in 1985, the result was a decline in objections being lodged with the Valuer-General.

I hope this bill results in a fairer and more transparent valuation system, where members of the public are able to make well-informed and timely decisions about their valuations, which have a significant financial impact on them. I urge all members to support the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley.