HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

VALUATION OF LAND (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 May 2009. Page 2327.)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (17:57): I rise to advise that the government will support two of the Hon. Mr Darley's six amendments. The Valuation of Land Act 1971 has been in operation for 37 years and has served this state well. However, the act is nearing four decades old and so the Valuer-General's State Valuation Office monitors, analyses and reports on valuations in an environment that has changed greatly since the early 1970s. The Valuer-General works with the state government on an ongoing reform agenda that does not seek to change the intent of the act but rather deliver further efficiency, transparency and clarity.

The pursuit of relativity, or the need for all similar properties to be valued at the same amount, is arguably the prime motivator in the Hon. Mr Darley's agenda, and it is his view that the issue of fairness and equity needs to be addressed. This is also a view that the government shares, but it is his proposed approach to the matter that we cannot support for reasons that I will discuss shortly. As I said, there are two amendments that government members will be supporting.

The Hon. Mr Darley's recommendation to delete subsection (2a) of section 22A creates the opportunity for a notional value to come into effect for the same year it was applied for. This would have no effect on the practices or procedures of the Valuer-General and we will support that amendment. Secondly, the government supports in principle the recommendation in relation to valuation of heritage properties subject to consultation with rating authorities and consideration of the timeliness of its introduction. Currently, a heritage listing is not a criteria for which a property can receive the benefit of a notional value. As the honourable member has stated, this amendment would help properties retain their original character by enabling a heritage-listed property the same type of concessional value as a residential property.

The government does not support the Hon. Mr Darley's other four amendments relating to the relativity of property valuations, reasons for valuation, removal of time limit for objections and multiple objections. The Valuer-General is required to undertake more than 845,000 assessments annually, which is done through mass appraisal techniques in accordance with widely adopted international best practice. This simultaneous valuation of multiple properties values an acceptable percentage of properties within an acceptable range of the correct value, but some properties do not fit this model. The current act recognises this and that is why property owners who feel their valuations are not accurate are given the opportunity to bring their concerns to the attention of the Valuer-General.

The proposed changes seek to place relativity as an issue to be addressed ahead of accuracy, which places state and local government revenue at immediate significant risk. Essentially, the Valuer-General need only make one under-valuation and that will be cause for all the other property owners around to seek a reduction. The risk would need to be mitigated by extensive and expensive new systems and resources at a level well in excess of the international standard and would require unprecedented access to information from property owners, and the costs, the invasion of privacy and the increased red tape just cannot be justified.

The government does not support the statement of reasons for valuation. The system that the honourable member proposes would add little benefit to a well-functioning system and would require significant system and resource investment. The current position, supported by legislation and court precedent, is that the Valuer-General is entitled to his independent statutory opinion of value, with the property owner required to demonstrate that the value is incorrect if they believe it to be so. This change would require the Valuer-General to justify his opinion on a case-by-case basis, with the potential scope of this obligation requiring significant system and resource investment. It is an onerous obligation that would add little benefit to our already well-functioning system.

We also do not support the removal of the time limit for objections. It is standard practice for legislation that has provisions for appeal to impose a time limit and there is no sensible reason to remove the 60-day time limit as set out in the act currently. The time limit provides ample opportunity for owners to raise objections and also allows the Valuer-General to implement work practices, budget and allocate resources reasonably. The Hon. Mr Darley's final recommendation, the grounds of objection, is not supported. This recommendation would create an unnecessary burden for landowners.

In closing, I thank the Hon. Mr Darley for drawing attention to the work undertaken by the Valuer-General, and the two amendments that the government supports build on our already excellent system. The other four proposed amendments add complexity and cost to what is an efficient and effective working system of land and property valuation and will not be supported.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (18:00): I thank the opposition for its support, and also those on the crossbenches who have indicated their support for the bill, in particular, for supporting amendments to ensure a more open and transparent system whereby owners have the opportunity to more fully understand their valuation and how it is arrived at.

I am disappointed that the government does not support all the amendments, especially those to do with the provision of information to owners regarding their own valuations and those to do with ensuring relativity across valuations. This clearly shows that the government is not interested in fairness and equity for South Australian ratepayers, and will send the wrong message to the Valuer-General that he can disregard relativity in his valuations.

Bill read a second time.


[Sitting suspended from 18:02 to 19:48]


In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Instead of making contributions as we go through the clauses, I reiterate what I said in my second reading speech; that is, the government supports clauses 4 and 5 and opposes the others.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The government supports clauses 4 and 5.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (5 to 8) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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