Motions

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:13): I move:

That the regulations made under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 concerning fees—general, made on 26 September 2017 and laid on the table of this council on 28 September 2017, be disallowed.

Previous parliaments have been faced with the issue, when disallowing regulations, where we cannot disallow parts of regulations that have been laid on the table. If we disallow regulations then we must disallow all of them. I am faced with this issue with this disallowance motion, as I am only really concerned with the new regulations as they relate to the Valuation of Land Act.

The new regulations would see fees for a SACAT review of a valuation increase from $71 to $765 for corporations and $545 for others. This is an incredible increase. When these regulations were laid on the table last year, I was a member of the Legislative Review Committee and sought further information from the Attorney-General's Department as to why there was such a big increase. The information provided in the response advised that the increase in fees is needed because the current fees are unsustainable, that SACAT may not be able to deliver their services without an increase, and that an increase in fees would deter frivolous applicants.

I understand there may be applications from owners who are seeking only a very small reduction in their valuation and who lodge applications for reviews without fully understanding the work that is required of them, as well as from the Valuer-General. This is not the fault of the owner. In searching for information on valuation reviews, the only information is the administrative instructions on how to lodge a review. There is no guiding information on what needs to be provided to SACAT or review valuers. The Valuer-General would do well to have information available to the public as it may assist with so-called frivolous applicants.

Further to this, the Valuer-General may find that having conversations with owners at the objection stage may resolve the issue without having to resort to a review at all. Owners often do not know they can request this of the Valuer-General, and it is not something that is advised in the State Valuation Office's objection pack. This simple change would save a lot of time and money in the long run.

I have requested from the Valuer-General's office information regarding the number of objections they receive and the number of these that are then referred to SACAT, or a review valuer, to gain insight into how many people this will affect; however, I am still waiting for these statistics. As such, I will need to conclude my remarks at a later stage.

My concern about the increase in these fees is that it will deny people the right to review, or that many may not bother because of the high cost. This will negate any positive outcome from the review. The current median value for a house in South Australia is $470,000. If an owner asks for SACAT to review the valuation it would need to be a valuation reduction of over 50 per cent in order for the owner to recoup his costs in savings from their rates and taxes. In my 11 years as valuer-general, I cannot ever recall seeing a reduction in value of this magnitude.

I understand that whilst there are other avenues available to request a valuation review, many people choose to have a SACAT review rather than a review by a valuer at a cost, as a SACAT review is lower. This indicates to me that the scale of rates for all reviews should be revised. This may result in an increase in the SACAT fees; however, the level that is being proposed is far too much. As I said previously, I am still waiting for further information from the Valuer-General and, as such, I seek leave to conclude my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.