Adjourned debate on second reading.
 (Continued from 28 May. Page 798.)
 
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN (Attorney-General): I thank honourable members for their contributions to the Bill and for their indications of support for the second reading. The Hon. Mr Holloway first asked for a copy of the report in relation to the Notional Values Working Party. I have not been provided with a copy of that. I am somewhat embar-rassed that I have not even an answer on that part of the matter raised by the honourable member, but I undertake to ensure that there is a response to it. I do not necessarily accept his proposition as a matter of principle that where a report is referred to in the second reading speech it automati-cally should be provided. However, I understand the argu-ment which he is putting and I will ensure that the matter is raised with the Minister responsible for the administration of the Act, that a reply is forwarded to him and, if it is possible to provide the report, ensure that that will also be done, and hopefully we can get that issue resolved quickly.
 It was unfortunate that in his second reading contribution the Hon. Mr Holloway made reference to the member for Mawson in if not expressed then implied criticism, suggesting that he would benefit from the passing of this Bill, I suppose, hinting that because he chaired this committee he would somehow derive a benefit from the Bill which was enacted. I have not raised the issue with the member for Mawson but, first, I would defend his honour because he would not have entered into the task if there was a potential for conflict of interest and, whilst I know little about his personal affairs, my understanding is that, whilst he does own broad acre property, it is so far south in the Fleurieu Peninsula that it could not in any way be affected by the operation of the provisions in this Bill.
 That is not stated categorically and without equivocation but mainly from my presumption of what might be the effect of property values on his own property so far away from the influence of metropolitan or suburban Adelaide and its expansion. I think it was unfortunate for that observation to be made by the honourable member and for him to colour the debate in a way which I believe is unwarranted.
 The honourable member does make some references to the limited period for objection and indicates that he agrees with that. He places a great deal of emphasis upon putting in some special provisions for the office of Valuer-General and, in effect, to elevate the Valuer-General to the status of Ombuds-man or the Electoral Commissioner, or perhaps in the future even akin to the Auditor-General when, in fact, there is no similarity between the public, administrative and other responsibilities which are carried by those statutory office holders.
 One only needs to look at the Electoral Commissioner to recognise that he has two very important responsibilities and to see why he cannot be removed except by resolution of both Houses. Now he is appointed by the Parliament on the recommendation of the Statutory Officers Committee. He first has a responsibility for running State elections and it is critically important that the person who holds that office be not only above criticism but be seen to be above criticism. The second function of the Electoral Commissioner is to participate as a member of the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission. They are two very important functions basic to the fair and unbiased operation of our electoral system.
 If one looks at the Ombudsman, again one can see some special obligations. The Ombudsman again cannot be removed, except by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament and, in addition, now is appointed by the Parliament on the recommendation of the Statutory Officers Committee. The Ombudsman is so appointed and has that protection because the Ombudsman exercises a critical function of examining the administrative acts of Executive Government and making a report to the Parliament as well as requiring corrections or other action by officers of Executive Government. For that reason it is important that the Ombudsman be protected from instant dismissal or intimidation.
 The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I am not suggesting that. If the honourable member is going to be mischievous and suggest that that therefore implies that the Valuer-General will be the subject of intimidation, he has got it wrong. I am not saying that. I am putting to the Council why we have special provisions for the Ombudsman and the Electoral Commis-sioner.
 The Hon. Ian Gilfillan: What is the current position of the Valuer-General?
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The current position of the Valuer General is that he is appointed by the Executive arm of Government and has no special protection. The vacancy has not been filled for a number of years.
 The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I do not know why that is in there, but I will check it and get back.
 The Hon. Ian Gilfillan interjecting:
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I will take it on notice and check it so that we can deal with it in Committee. In the earlier days of the colony and the State the Valuer-General may have had some special responsibilities, but now the Valuer-General has basically only the obligation to provide a valuation of the State, which is the basis upon which the land tax, other than land tax on the principal place of residence, is established and council rated. In every other jurisdiction, I am told, the Valuer-General is an officer of the Executive Government.
 If we get to the point of the Valuer-General's being a statutory officer appointed in the same manner as the Electoral Commissioner and the Ombudsman, in the current environment of Government, public policy and public administration you have to ask similar questions about the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity and other officers who might be named in legislation. For those reasons the Govern-ment is not supportive of the amendment that will be moved in Committee by the Hon. Paul Holloway; but apart from that we indicate our appreciation for support for the second reading.
 Bill read a second time.
 In Committee.
 Clauses 1 and 2 passed.
 Clause 3.
  The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:
 Page 1, after line 21óInsert:
 (a1) by striking out from subsection (1) `by notice published in the Gazette' and substituting `on a recommendation made by resolution of both Houses of Parliament';
 (a2) by inserting after subsection (1) the following subsection:
  (1a) On a vacancy occurring in the office of Valuer-General, the matter of inquiring into and reporting on a suitable person for appointment to the vacant office is referred by force of this subsection to the Statutory Officers Committee established under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991,;
The two amendments relate to the appointment of the Valuer-General. The first amendment provides that the Valuer-General should be appointed by the Statutory Officers Committee established under the Parliament, so I will deal with it first. The Attorney-General has just tried to draw a distinction between the position of Valuer-General and other office holders such as the Ombudsman and the Electoral Commissioner. I do not agree with his distinction. During the second reading debate on the Bill I read out an extract from the original explanation of the Government back in 1971 when the Bill was introduced. It was introduced by the Hon. Bert Shard, then Chief Secretary, who stated:
 This Bill makes him [the Valuer-General] an officer responsible to Parliament and frees him from any suggestion of political bias.
That is the question. The Valuer-General has to value all of the property within the State. Upon his valuation are raised hundreds of millions of dollars in taxation, stamp duties, sewerage rates, local government rates, and so on. So it is important that the Valuer-General should be above the political process and not subject to any pressure in any way as to the exercise of his judgment. There are hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue to Government, both State and local, at stake.
 It is important that we recognise that with the appointment of this position. As I indicated when debating this Bill last, when the budget was brought down last week we note that the Government has decided to extend the property franchise, notwithstanding that the now Government back in 1992 vigorously opposed the water rating system at the time, which for 100 years previously had been based on a property tax. The then Opposition was very vocal and outspoken at the time. Subsequently we have changed the water rating system to a user-pays system, but nevertheless we now have the Government in its most recent budget going back to a property-based tax to fund emergency services. The merits of that will be debated in this place at the appropriate time, but if successful it will again extend the importance of the valuation that this Government does as a taxing base.
 The Opposition believes that we should recognise the independence of the position in two ways: first, make the appointment of the Valuer-General subject to the Statutory Officers Committee of Parliament in the way other officers are appointed; and, secondly, reject the amendment in the Bill which seeks to make it a five year contract appointment instead of an appointment until retirement. I support the amendment.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: Concerning the question raised by the Hon. Mr Gilfillan during the second reading stage, I acknowledge that there is a provision in the Act whereby the Valuer-General is appointed until he or she attains the age of 65 years and whereby he or she may be removed from office upon the presentation of an address by both Houses of Parliament praying for that person's removal from office, and a provision for suspension is included in section 9 of the principal Act.
 I confess that I am not familiar with all the reasons why the then Chief Secretary would have wanted to move for this, except that perhaps then there was a much heavier depend-ence upon property for taxation purposes and less opportunity for review. The Valuation of Land Act contains a number of provisions which I think were enacted subsequent to the 1971 amendment by the then Chief Secretary and which provide for a review of the valuations. So it is not as though the valuations stand for all time without challenge: any Valuer-General's decision is subject to review in relation to a particular piece of real estate.
 Although there is that current provision in section 9, the Government has taken the view that it is now time to rethink the rationale for appointment of the Valuer-General under the terms and conditions specified in the Act and to move to something which is more flexible, keeping in mind that there are adequate opportunities for independent review of valuations and that valuation principles are well set out in the Act, and that, apart from the normal mechanisms for a review provided in the Valuation of Land Act, judicial review applies to the work undertaken by the Valuer-General. The Govern-ment opposes the amendment proposed by the Hon. Mr Holloway.
  The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I support the amendment. I think that the intention expressed in the Act is quite clear and I can see no reason to depart from it in such a dramatic way. I do not think the Attorney-General should be too sensitive about it. It is common knowledge that people are appointed to positions by the Government of the day because they are favoured by the Government of the day for that position.
 The Hon. K.T. Griffin: Some may be, but all aren't.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: They certainly would not be appointed because they are out of favour with the Govern-ment of the day. If one takes the reverse argument one can see the logic of my comment. It appears to me that the person who is qualified to be Valuer-General will be competent to be Valuer-General for a reasonably extended term. It is not as though they burn out over five years. It is a task that I think one could reasonably expect to fulfil until reaching retirement age. Also, as I understand it, the provi-sion in the current Act will remain, that both Houses can remove the Valuer-General, for whatever reason. We support the amendment.
 I suspect that a student of Hansard studying my second reading speech would have noted my concern, from the LGA, that the valuations of different authorities can be applied retrospectively. I do not recall hearing the Attorney in his concluding remarks address that matter. He can correct me if I am wrong, but if I am correctó
 The Hon. K.T. Griffin: I did not refer to that.
 The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: At the right time can the Attorney address this matter. I am not sure which clause addresses it specifically, except possibly the last one, clause 17. I do not want the Bill to slide out of the Committee stage without this being addressed.
  The Hon. T. CROTHERS: I, too, rise to support the amendment. In doing so I think there is some rationale that underpins that which we say. The Attorney-General in his contribution alluded to the fact that the Valuer-General was appointed until the age of 65 years and that such person may only be removed by addresses carried by both Houses of the Parliament, so as to give that person protection under the present Act. He then said that he did not know why the Chief Secretary of the day saw fit to include a provision such as that in the Bill.
 I think the historical precedent goes further back than that. It probably goes back to the time of the South Australia Company when land values were not only determined in England but (I seem to recall as part of my historical reading) when, on a number of occasions, the then Secretary for the colonies, Lord Glenelg, overturned the legislative processes of what was then an infant parliamentary Chamber, albeit not with the same power that this one has now, and certainly overturned decisions of the then governing company, which was, of course, the South Australia Company.
 Up until recentlyócertainly until just prior to the Second World War and even after itómuch of the property in the square mile of Adelaide was still owned by interests located in the United Kingdom. It may well be that the precedent was that, when this Parliament assumed full responsibility, even before the Statutes of Westminster, when it assumed pretty well full responsibility for its own destiny, whoever was the author responsible for the Act determined to put in place a proposition which in fact had only been neutered by a direct Act of this Parliament, so as to forestall any intervention or interference from the other side of the world. I simply proffer that as as good a piece of rationale as any for that which underpins the present state of the Act and the reference it makes to the Valuer-General's appointment. I support the amendment.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I make one point in response to the Attorney's earlier comments. The Attorney indicated that we now have, under subsequent changes to the Act, the provision for independent reviews against the Valuer-General's decision. I would suggest that most of those independent reviews would be against high values of assessment by the Valuer-General, because if the Valuer-General assesses your property at a value which you consider too high you will have to pay higher council rates, sewerage rates and so on. It certainly is proffered that we should have some sort of independent review against such processes. Where the real problem and pressure from the Government may come in is if there are people who wish to keep their values low to reduce such taxes and charges. Of course, it is highly unlikelyó
 The Hon. K.T. Griffin interjecting:
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Who will ask for an independent review if pressure is brought to bear on a Valuer-General to reduce values to reduce the cross people have to bear?
 The Hon. K.T. Griffin interjecting:
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, maybe so, but earlier Parliaments have decided that they will ensure that Valuers-General are absolutely free from any sort of political pressure by making the appointment a life appointment and by providing that the Valuer-General may be removed only by an address of both Houses. Here the Government seeks to turn that into a five year term. Clearly, the Valuer-General is much more likely to be subject to the pressure of the Govern-ment of the day, particularly if that person's term is nearing the end. The most important point of the Opposition's amendment is that this appointment should be restored to an appointment until retirement. The second part of itóto make that appointment subject to the relevant committee of Parliament, the Statutory Officers Committeeóis perhaps less important. On behalf of the Opposition, the point I want to make is that we believe that, for a position as important as this, we should stay with the wishes of Parliament over the past many yearsóthat the position should be independent and be seen to be independent.
 The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The Government does not accept that it is an office which is so important that it requires the protections to which the honourable member referred or that it will, in fact, be open to abuse. The proposition raised by the Hon. Mr Holloway about influence by Government to keep valuations down is bizarre in the extreme. In fact, it is likely to be a very serious criminal offence under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. However, if the numbers are in favour of the amendment, I indicate that, if it is carried on the voices, I will not be seeking to divide. It will undoub-tedly go to conference, and we can resolve the issues there. In terms of the Hon. Mr Gilfillan's matter, I do not have the answer. However, I suggest that, once we have dealt with the amendments, I will then report progress and see whether I can get a reply by tomorrow.
 Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.
 Clause 4 passed.
 Clause 5.
 The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:
 Page 2ó
  Lines 3 to 7óLeave out all words in these lines after `by striking out subsection (1)'.
  Lines 15 to 24óLeave out all words in these lines.
These amendments flow on from earlier amendments I have already discussed.
 Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.
 Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
 

 

TOP