South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.A. Darley:

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.

(Continued from 9 May 2018.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:34): As outlined when I first moved this motion, I am seeking to disallow these regulations, as I believe the inordinate increase of 977 per cent will prove to be a barrier to many people seeking a review of valuation through SACAT. At the time of moving the motion, I had sought information from the Valuer-General's office, asking for the total number of reviewed valuations in the past two financial years broken down to the number that were lodged through SACAT or conducted by a review valuer.

In 2015-16, 42 reviews were conducted by valuers and 34 were conducted by SACAT. In 2016-17, 27 reviews were conducted by valuers and 17 were conducted by SACAT. These statistics surprised me, as it shows that, even though the cost was slightly more, people still opted for a review by a valuer rather than by SACAT. Notwithstanding this, I still believe that the increase is disproportionate. In the past few weeks, I have had discussions with the government, who have been unable to provide any reason or basis for the suggested fee. The argument was that the SACAT fee should be more than the fee for a review by a valuer. I absolutely agree with this but completely disagree with how far it has gone.

I would have thought a more appropriate amount would be double the current fee for review by valuers; however, this is a matter for the government to determine should my motion be successful. Yesterday, I received advice from the Attorney-General's office that, should this motion be successful, instead of the fees reverting to what they were—that is, $71 per application—there would be no fees collected by SACAT for the reviews. I am advised that this is because the fees I am seeking to disallow were made as new regulations. That is to say that the old fees were made under general regulations that were revoked and replaced with the new fees. Therefore, if this disallowance motion is successful, there is nothing to replace them. Of course, this is not something that I seek to achieve.

The Attorney-General's office also advised that all SACAT fees will be changed to take effect from 1 July and that they will be working to have new, lower fees ready for this change. If this is the case, I imagine that I will not be proceeding with my motion. Of course, time will tell, and I look forward to coming back to the chamber after 1 July to either progress with my disallowance motion or to withdraw it, having worked with the government to find a sensible solution to this issue.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.