HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-12-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

VALUATION OF LAND (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

(Second reading debate adjourned on 16 July 2009. Page 3569.)

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Ms SIMMONS: I move:

Page 2, lines 8 to 12—Delete clause 3 and substitute:

3—Amendment of section 19—Amendment to valuation roll

Section 19—After subsection (2) insert:

(3) The Valuer-General may amend a valuation and the valuation roll if he or she discovers or receives notice that the valuation is not consistent with other valuations in force under this act (provided that this subsection only applies if the amended valuation will be less than the original valuation).

Through the former bill the Hon. John Darley MLC (whom I see in this place today and congratulate on the substance of this bill) sought to mandate methodology for the Valuer-General and objection rights for landowners in relation to relativity of valuations. Proposed section 10A and clause 8, through the insertion of a new subsection (1a), have been deleted. Proposed section 19(3) allows the Valuer-General to have discretion to correct relativity of valuation errors.

The former version of the bill prescribed that the issue was addressed through objection process. This amendment will alleviate the need for major system and/or resource investment to be made to address the uncertainties created for rating authorities and the potential disruption to state and local government revenue that the original amendments would have created.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I recognise that this bill has been somewhat lengthy in its evolution and certainly recognise the pursuit of the member of the Legislative Council (Hon. John Darley) in relation to this matter. It is also my understanding that negotiations have occurred since the bill was first debated in the house and subsequently when it was considered in the other place. Amendments were supported in the other place, but significant negotiation has been occurring between the Hon. Mr Darley and the government which has resulted in an agreed set of amendments being moved in this committee for support.

The opposition has considered the issues relating to the removal of clause 3 and its replacement with what is now a government amendment. It certainly supports the fact that relativity is an important issue. When people look at valuations and consider issues, relativity between properties of like size, dimension, age, structure and historical aspect is important. The fact that the Valuer-General has now been provided with that opportunity—and has confirmed his support for it—is a progressive step forward. I confirm that the opposition supports the amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 4 and 5 passed.

Clause 6.

Ms SIMMONS: I move:

Page 3, line 4—Delete clause 6

The proposed amendment to the year operative for notional values is supported. The deletion of this provision allows the notional valuation to take effect immediately and not for the following financial year. Whether the notional value comes into effect for the current or following year, there is no impact on the Valuer-General's practices or procedures.

There will be revenue implications for rating authorities, as deleting section 22A(2a) would create the opportunity for the notional value to come into effect for the financial year in which they were applied for. This means revenue would need to be returned or credited to the property owner with no opportunity for the rating authority to amend the rating policy to manage the resultant financial consequences.

The Hon. John Darley MLC sought feedback on this issue from the Local Government Association of South Australia which supported this amendment 'in principle' in its submission dated 30 March 2009.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I confirm the fact that the opposition has been advised by the Hon. Mr Darley that the LGA supports the removal of clause 6.

Amendment carried; clause deleted.

Clause 7.

Ms SIMMONS: I move:

Page 3, lines 4 to 20—Delete clause 7

Mr GRIFFITHS: I would like to pose a question about this area to ensure that it is on the record. It is our understanding that the Valuer-General has given an undertaking to provide more information to landowners, including reasons for a valuation and details of comparative properties, such as size, sale price, valuation on the sales provided, etc. If the member for Morialta is able to provide some comment about that I would be very grateful. The Hon. Mr. Darley has confirmed the fact that he is prepared to allow this clause to be removed, but it is still important for a commitment to be given to ensure that that level of information is readily provided to property owners.

Ms SIMMONS: Having conferred with the current Valuer-General, he has undertaken to provide that information.

Amendment carried; clause deleted.

Clause 8.

Ms SIMMONS: I move:

Page 3, lines 22 to 28 [clause 8(1) and (2)]—Delete subclauses (1) and (2) and substitute:

Section 24—After subsection (1d) insert:

(1e) Despite any other provision of this section, the Valuer-General may, for reasonable cause shown by a person entitled to make an objection to a valuation, extend the period within which the objection may be made (whether or not the period for objection to the valuation that would otherwise apply under this section has already expired).

Mr GRIFFITHS: We confirm that advice. Again, the opposition has considered this and believes that it is quite a progressive step forward. We understand that time frames for many issues need to be in place to give some surety for people as to when to respond, when to lodge an objection and when to query an issue. If circumstances create a situation whereby the Valuer-General supports a request (which would be outside of a normally defined date or, indeed, an objection or an issue to be considered), that is a progressive step forward by the Valuer-General's office, and the opposition indicates its support.

Ms SIMMONS: The original amendments to section 24 would have removed the time limit for objections and provided multiple objection opportunities for the same property by the same person. The Hon. John Darley MLC again sought feedback on this issue from the Local Government Association of South Australia, which did not support the original amendment.

The removal of time limits is contrary to national and international best practice and would have impacted on the Valuer-General's work practice and allocation of resources. It would have also impacted on the work practices, budgeting and resourcing for rating authorities. The proposed insertion of section 24(1e) is supported as it provides an administrative discretion to the Valuer-General to accept objections to valuations lodged beyond the regulated 60-day period for reasonable cause.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT