 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
Debate on the Local Government
package of Bills. i.e.
This page covers only the Democrats amendment which sought to increase autonomy and flexibility for local councils in their choice of valuers. For an index of other topics covered in the Local Government Bills, see the Democrats Local Government page, or the 1999 Budget Session Index |
Clause 168.
The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I move: Page 126— Line 6—After `made' insert: , or caused to be made, Line 7—After `council' insert:, or by a firm or consortium of valuers engaged by the council Line 11—Leave out `of the Valuer-General'.
Lines 15 and 16—Leave out `of a valuer employed or engaged by the council'. The amendments reflect the administrative changes being made in the Department for Administrative and Information Services to implement the separation of the regulator and service provider roles in its valuation activity and the likelihood of further contracting out to the private sector of some of Valuation SA's service provision on the basis of the competitive tender. The wording reflects the wording of section 11(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1971. It reflects wording that has been in the relevant principal Act since 1971. It just was not necessarily picked up earlier and what is in the Bill is being upgraded to current practice.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: My understanding of these amendments is that they are to get more consistency in valuations and I do not see any reason to oppose the amendments.
Amendments carried.
The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I move:
Page 126, lines 17 and 18—Leave out `made by the Valuer-General and valuations made by a valuer employed or engaged by the council' and insert:under subsection (2)(a) and (b).
It is consequential to the Government's amendment to lines 6 and 7 of this clause.The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
Page 126, lines 17 to 23—Leave out paragraphs (b) and (c). I must say that what we are going through is a pretty complicated mangling of the clause. Paragraphs (b) and (c) deal with what would control a council if it adopted a combination of valuations and its option to choose, as I read paragraph (c): all land within a particular land use category declared by the regulations as a permissible differentiating factor must be subject to valuations adopted under subsection (2)(a) or to valuations adopted under subsection (2)(b), and not to a combination of both. It is probably difficult for members of the Committee to get a grasp of all the commutations that come from this clause and the amendments that we are dealing with, and I am no exception to that. But I believe that my amendments offer the councils, again, more option, discretion and autonomy in choosing in their own wisdom whether to use private valuers for part or a particular part of their valuation. In some ways, in the Bill the Government—and the Government is not seeking to amend this in its amendments—is implying that some valuers may be untrustworthy or incompetent. I think that it is for councils to make that evaluation. They will very quickly learn; in fact, they may be more astute at picking the right people to do the job.In moving my first amendment to leave out paragraphs (b) and (c), that is the intention of it. I feel that it is probably fair to indicate that the advice I have had is that the LGA supports the deletion of paragraph (c) but has required the retention of (b) but to have it amended. That probably does not clarify the issue particularly: it just indicates in the state of fairness what is the LGA's opinion.
In my opinion, my amendments are consistent with the Democrats' constant theme of `where possible, we have been prepared to leave the councils to have the discretion and the autonomy'.
The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: The Government opposes the amendment. The removal of these clauses leaves no assurance of consistency of valuations used for local government rating. Councils could potentially pick and choose which properties to value without any safeguards or overall standards and accountability. It is an important matter of public policy principle with regard to ensuring a fair and equitable public taxation base, as we have provided in the Bill, and we believe that that equitable public taxation base would be threatened. The Government amendments which I have already moved to this clause ensure that the Valuer-General does not have a de facto monopoly in this matter.
The Hon. Ian Gilfillan's amendment negatived; the Hon. Diana Laidlaw's amendment carried.The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I move:
Page 126, page 19—After `guidelines' insert: `, policies'. The Government believes that this amendment better reflects the intended role of the Valuer-General in assuring overall consistency of approach in making evaluations for local government rating purposes. It is a bit of clarification. Amendment carried. The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I move: Page 126, after line 25—Insert:(4a) Subsection (3)(c) does not apply in a case where the land use category attributed to a particular piece of land is changed following the declaration of a rate or rates for a particular financial year. This new clause is designed to address a technical problem which could potentially arise from the application of the requirement in clause 168(3)(c) that all properties within a land use category must be valued by the same valuation source. Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.
