Adjourned debate on second reading.
 (Continued from 24 March. Page 605.)
 
  The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This Bill has been intro-duced to clarify certain grey areas within the application of the Valuation of Land Act 1971. While the Opposition supports the main thrust of this Bill, there are a few issues that need highlighting. The Bill covers four main issues as follows: the common date of valuation, notional values, a limited objection period and the appointment of a Valuer-General. It is on the last point that the Opposition holds greatest concern, and I will detail those concerns later. I will talk, first, about the common date of valuation. The principle of a common date of valuation is a sensible one. It alleviates the problem whereby dates of valuation for rating purposes vary between local government areas over a six month period. This variation can lead to value level differences between adjoining councils in a rising or a falling market. A common date of valuation means that every valuation is set at a particular date, and that is a much fairer proposition.
 Returning to the question of notional values, I have a few concerns about clause 12 of this Bill which seeks to amend section 22 of the Act in relation to notional values. Currently, the law protects genuine primary producers from having their land valued at the highest and most lucrative use of the land. It values the land in accordance with its rural use and by ignoring the potential for uses other than primary production, in other words, for commercial or residential uses. With a lower assessed value (the so-called notional value) and consequently reduced rates, the land is clearly more viable for primary production than if rates on the land reflected its potential as a residential development. The policy of the Valuer-General's office has also been to permit the applica-tion of notional values to primary production properties that are enhanced by existing land division.
 This amendment seeks to provide legislative authority to this by allowing a notional value to be assigned to land under primary production which is already subdivided, and this is being done, it is argued, to discourage development of the land. This clause is particularly applicable to those primary producers whose land verges on housing develop-ments, such as in the outer northern or southern suburbs or the Adelaide Hills. An advantage of this provision is that it ensures that farmers are not forced out of operation because of higher rates due to housing encroaching on farm land. As the shadow Minister for Primary Industries I can see the obvious value in this in that the retention of rural production in such areas is preferable to speculative subdivision on the land.
 However, the downside to the provision is that average ratepayers have to bear the brunt of this concession. It is, in fact, a subsidy to primary producers paid by other ratepayers. I note from the Minister's second reading explanation of this Bill in another place that a committee (called the Notional Values Working Party) examined the issue of notional value. It appears that the member for Mawson chaired this commit-tee, although he declared in his speech on the Bill in another place that he holds rural land under multiple titles; as such he will be a significant beneficiary of the passage of this Bill.
 Given that the report of this working party is referred to in the second reading explanation of the Government, I would ask the Minister whether it is possible to table a copy of that report. If reports are generally referred to in second reading explanations, in my view it should be the practice that such should be made available so that the Parliament can under-stand the justification for such measures. In order for councils affected by notional values to maintain the current levels of their rate revenue, it is said in the second reading explanation that they may be required to increase their rateable assess-ment by up to 3½ per cent in those affected council areas, which is about $16 per assessment.
 Clearly, this revenue loss in outer metropolitan areas, such as the electorate of Mawson, will result in increased rates for residential properties to offset the reduced rates received by rural producers who hold multiple titles. I trust that the constituents of Mawson accept the need to pay more so that their member may pay lower rates on his multiple titles. I support any measure that keeps our best rural land under production but, in my view, proper zoning and disincentive to subdivision through that process remains the best way to achieve this objective. Nevertheless, we support the measure.
 I now refer to the question of the limited period for objection. Limiting the time period for making an objection to a valuation has its merits, and the Opposition agrees that 60 days is a fair time to allow an objection to be submitted. However, I understand that the Local Government Assoc-iation has expressed some concern regarding the fact that the 60 day period applies also to subsequent Bills that include a valuation of land, for example, an SA Water valuation, which determines sewerage charges and land tax. A person receiv-ing this has an opportunity to query the valuation of land included within 60 days of receiving that account, even where the valuation remains unchanged from a prior council valuation notice. However, the Opposition is informed that the LGA is prepared to accept this amend-ment in its current form, so we will support this provision.
 I turn now to the appointment of the Valuer-General. This Bill proposes that the Valuer-General be appointed on contract for a period of five years. It was with some surprise that I noted from the second reading explanation that this State has not appointed a Valuer-General since March 1993, a period of more than five years, with a Deputy Valuer-General acting in this position.
 The Hon. K.T. Griffin: Labor Government as well as Liberal Government.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Indeed. One could perhaps understand a few months after his term expired in March 1993, but I would suggest that it has been this Government for the past 4½ years of that period. It seems to have taken a great deal of time to correct this anomaly. The Opposition believes that the proposal to make the office of Valuer-General a five year contract position is unacceptable and we will therefore move several amendments during the Commit-tee stage of the Bill. When the Valuation of Land Act was debated in 1971 a clear argument was made that the Valuer-General should be independent and be seen to be independ-ent. At that time the best method for achieving this aim was to a appoint a Valuer-General until the age of 65 years. The argument was made then that the Valuer-General should be regarded by all sections of the community as an independent valuing authority divorced from the rating and taxing policies of the State. The Act made the Valuer-General an officer responsible to Parliament and freed that position from any suggestion of political bias.
 The following is a quote from a speech made by the Hon. Bert Shard, then Chief Secretary, on 11 November 1971:
 It is also most desirable to separate completely the head of the Valuation Department from the rating and taxing authorities so that there should be no mistaken belief that his valuations are influenced by the revenue needs of the State. He should be regarded by the Government and all sections of the community as an independent valuing authority divorced from the rating and taxing policies of this State. This Bill makes him an officer responsible to Parliament and frees him from any suggestion of political bias.
It is my opinion that the same should hold true todayóeven if we use non-gender specific language to do itóand, for that reason, I have grave doubts about the provision to limit the term of the Valuer-General to five years. The Opposition sees this as an unacceptable down-grading of an important statutory office, and Opposition amendments will seek to restore the independence of the office.
 I remind the Council that the Valuer-General determines the value of all real estate within this State. There is inevi-tably considerable scope within this function for the exercise of discretion by the Valuer-General. This valuation is the basis upon which the hundreds of millions of dollars paid each year in council rates, sewerage charges, land tax and other fees are calculated.
 Digressing for a moment, just today we had a statement from the Minister in another place informing us that a new property-based tax for funding emergency services is likely to be introduced. So, presumably, this will be another source of millions of dollars of revenue that will be based upon the work of the Valuer-General.
 The Government's argument for making the Valuer-General's position a contract position is that it will make it consistent with Public Sector Management Act contract appointments, and the Government refers to the current Police Commissioner, who is employed under contract. This is not a valid argument, as I do not believe that contract positions should be offered in such cases, in any event. The position of Valuer-General should, I believe, be seen in the same light as the South Australian Ombudsman or Electoral Commissioner, whose appointments are legislatively enshrined as being on the basis of a recommendation made by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I also believe that, in order to maintain the independence of the Valuer-General, the appointment should be until retirement. It is, therefore, the Opposition's intention, while in the main supporting this Bill, to move amendments in the Committee stage to maintain the independence of the appointment of the Valuer-General.
 
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The Democrats support the second reading of the Bill and recognise that its initiatives are constructive and, in the main, should be helpful to the general process of getting a reasonable value and then implementing it in the various charges and procedures which are bound to have a fair and reasonable valuation included.
 There is a quibble from the LGA, which I believe was mentioned by the Hon. Paul Holloway (and I apologise if I did not accurately pick up what he said) as to the ability for an almost retrospective adjustment of rates, because there is an inconsistency between the Valuation of Land Act and the Local Government Act in relation to the amount of time allowed to object to valuations: the former allows objection at any time in the financial year, while the latter allows for only 21 days after notification of valuation, and the working party recommended a new model, which is included in the Bill. So far, so good. But where you have rates which are determined on a valuation, 60 days is available for appeal and that period of time has concluded, it is fair and reasonable, in my view, that the local government entity can then be confident that it will have revenue from that rating invoice, and budget accordingly. However, should there be an appeal to Land Tax or SA Water later in the year, if that appeal is successful it retrospectively interferes with and reduces the rates payable. This is my understanding of the matter, which has been raised with us by the Local Government Associa-tion. I think that is an unsatisfactory consequence of this proposed legislation.
 It is interesting to note from a ministerial statement made by the Minister for Police in another place, which was handed to us today, that it actually allows for a fixed property valuation for the purposes of raising part of a levy for emergency services funding. One assumes that that fixed property valuation will be embraced in the same net and that, were there to be successful appeals against that, the ramifica-tions would go back retrospectively to valuations previously determined and, therefore, budgeted upon. That is a matter which I hope will be addressed satisfactorily either by amendment or explanation if possible.
 The final matter I will comment on is the one raised and debated at some length by the Hon. Paul Holloway regarding the appointment of the Valuer-General. I think the honourable member raises a valid argument. I am not persuaded that it is essential for us to have a five-year contract for a person holding this office. As the Hon. Paul Holloway has argued, it may well expose at least some suspicion or a charge that pressure could be put on the Valuer-General where his or her reappointment relied on the goodwill of the Government of the day. So, I am interested to look at the argument that the Government puts up with a view to possibly supporting this amendment when it is moved in Committee so that the matter can be pursued more diligently.
 As an aside, I was interested to hear that the Hon. Paul Holloway compared this situation with the contract appointment of the Commissioner of Police. I was tempted to lead him into sharing with us his opinion as to whether the Commissioner of Police should continue to be appointed on a five-year contract. It shows how diligently I follow his arguments.
 The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I do not think that I will get an answer loud enough to be recorded in Hansard: that will be the subject of a private conversation. I repeat: the Demo-crats support the second reading of this Bill.
 
 The Hon. CAROLINE SCHAEFER secured the adjournment of the debate.