Select Committee on Certain Matters relating to the Operations of the Office of the Valuer-General

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:07): I move:

That the report of the select committee be noted.

On 5 May 2021, a select committee was established to inquire into matters relating to the operations of the Office of the Valuer-General upon a motion I moved earlier this year. The committee received eight written submissions and conducted 10 hearings between 15 July 2021 and 30 September 2021.

Our committee heard evidence from the Office of the Valuer-General, Land Services SA, various councils, the Local Government Association of South Australia, the Law Council of Australia Taxation Committee (SA), and members of the public. The committee heard evidence of inadequate policymaking, resourcing issues, unnecessary delays and concerns about the accuracy of valuations. The committee also heard concerns about lack of transparency, delays and barriers in the objection process.

During evidence, I had real concerns regarding the evidence given by the deputy to the Valuer-General regarding the Department for Infrastructure and Transport advisory function of the Office of the Valuer-General. The deputy to the Valuer-General had difficulty in explaining the role of this unit to the committee, and his description did not accord with advice from the CEO of the Department for Infrastructure and Transport on this matter. The deputy to the Valuer-General finally conceded that he was not an expert in the field, notwithstanding the fact that he is in charge of the advisory unit.

The committee proposes 11 recommendations for consideration. The recommendations relate to the staffing of the Office of the Valuer-General and the allocation of further functions to Land Services SA to alleviate resourcing and delay concerns.

Recommendations have also been made in respect of policy direction to Land Services SA by the Office of the Valuer-General to increase the reliability and fairness of valuations. The committee also recommended further engagement with stakeholders during the valuation and objection processes to increase transparency. I trust these recommendations will go some way in remedying the concerns expressed to the committee during its inquiry.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge and thank the following members of the committee for their work: the Hon. Ian Hunter, the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Hon. Terry Stephens. I would also like to thank our secretary, Mr Peter Dimopoulos, and our research officer, Dr Kylie Doyle, for their assistance. I commend the committee's report to the council.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:10): Briefly, I would like to commend Mr Darley and the members of the committee and those who assisted us in providing that report—as he has pointed out, the Hon. Ian Hunter and the Hon. Terry Stephens, as well as our secretary, Mr Peter Dimopoulos, and Dr Doyle for her report. Mr Darley's vast knowledge and experience certainly contributed to the outcomes from this report. It also exposed some glaring anomalies and inconsistencies in our valuation system. These have been compounded now by the revaluation initiative that is being rolled out.

We heard evidence from several sources, including, as mentioned, the Local Government Association and also the Charles Sturt council, which presented us with some examples that actually raised our eyebrows about the way the valuations have impacted on particular types of properties. We also heard that there have been issues with inconsistent valuations. As Mr Darley has pointed out, clearly the Valuer-General's office perhaps needs to be more adequately resourced in order that the public do have confidence in their operations and in their decisions.

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