In Committee.
Clauses 6 to 11 passed.
Clause 12.
The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This clause refers to notional valuations.
I thank the Minister, through the Minister for Administrative Services,
for providing a copy of the report of the Notional Values Working Party.
A couple of issues from that working party report are worth observing,
and I have a question on which I would like an answer from the Minister,
if not now perhaps by correspondence later rather than hold up the Bill.
I refer to a comment made in the report which states:
Notional values have been viewed by the working party as only
one of a number of useful measures aimed at protecting primary production
land from development for uses other than primary production. The working
party accepted that notional values could not be used in isolation from
other policy measures that seek to achieve the same goals.
I endorse that view. It was a point I made in the second reading debate:
that we should not rely on these changes to notional values to protect
land use for primary production. We need other measures.
As well as recommending changes to the Act, which have been incorporated,
there were also recommendations in the report in relation to other matters.
In particular it is recom-mended that a promotional campaign with input
from the Minister's office be proposed following the passage of the amendments
to the Valuation of Land Act. Will that take place? Secondly, the working
party also canvasses the establishment of a notional values consultative
committee, which will assist in the process of creating notional value
publicity material and in publicising and marketing the use of notional
values to the wider community. Does the Govern-ment intend to set up this
notional values consultative committee and, if so, at a later date will
the Minister provide details on the functions of that committee?
Also within the recommendations of the Notional Values Working
Party is the recommendation that the issues of native vegetation and State
heritage effects on primary production land be investigated by a working
party set up specifically for that purpose. I would appreciate an indication
from the Minister as to whether that recommendation will be adopted.
Finally, it is also recommended that the Valuer-General establish
a comprehensive program of promotion of notional values to raise the level
of awareness in the community of what they are, who is eligible and how
they are determined. That links in with the recommendation I mentioned
earlier about a notional value consultative committee being estab-lished.
I would like an indication on that matter.
To conclude my comments on this clause, I refer to a news item
on ABC Regional Radio 5CK yesterday entitled `Vineyard owners to face rate
increases', in which it was stated:
The Farmers Federation in South Australia says some vineyard
owners are facing council rate increases of up to 300 per cent. Federation
Chief Executive, Sandy Cameron, says the Valuer-General's Department has
written to owners warning of a significant increase. Mr Cameron says he
is concerned some vineyard owners will not be able to afford the increase.
. . the federation will take up the issue with the Valuer-General. . .
the Federation wants to know on what basis the valuations have been made
including whether specific properties or sales are being used as a gauge.
Those matters are the usual sort of problems that primary producers
face when they are confronted with an increase in their rates as a result
of increased land valuations. Given the profitability of the wine industry
in recent years, it is understandable that those properties would increase
in value, notwithstanding the fact that this land is used specifically
for rural production.
In relation to the question of notional value, the issue that
it raises is that we need to spell out clearly for those involved in rural
production the basis upon which these valuations are made, because there
are big differences in the way in which rural land is valued. Obviously,
one significant difference is access to water rights, which clearly would
significantly affect the valuation of land. The point I make is that there
is a need for greater publicity in relation to how valuations are made
in respect of land for primary production, and I think it would be helpful
if the Government indicated how it intended to proceed on this point.
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I regret that
I cannot give the honourable member answers to those questions today, but
I will undertake to follow up those matters and provide a response by letter
in due course.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I ask the Attorney whether he has an
answer to the question I raised, which I think was part of the reason for
the adjournment, in relation to the timing of the valuation and its retrospectivity.
This matter was raised by the Local Government Association. The dilemma
was spelt out in the following way: a council could use a valuation and
the 60 day period for appeal could have expired, and then the valuation
by SA Water, which may have been at a different level, would apply retrospectively,
according to the interpretation of the LGA.
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: In response to the honourable member's
question, information with which I have been provided is as follows. The
Local Government Association has a concern with the 60 day objection period
as proposed in the Bill. That concern relates to the extended objection
period that will be available to ratepayers in council areas where site
values are adopted and where the ratepayer is also liable for land tax.
Currently, land tax accounts are issued as late as February. As a successful
objection could be finalised very late in the financial year, this would
have the potential of adversely impacting upon the budget of councils which
adopt site values.
The LGA's favoured solution to this problem is to limit the applicability
of any successful objection so that it is not retrospective. The effect
of this approach, if adopted, is that a successful objection would not
affect the level of rates that have already been paid. The adoption of
the Local Govern-ment Association's proposal could be viewed as discrimina-tory.
The timing of some objections would allow a reduction in the level of rates
or taxes of another agency, whereas the timing of other objections would
restrict the impact of a reduction to a single agency's rates or taxes.
It is considered that the LGA proposal would create confusion, particularly
for ratepayers. There would be a perception that two values were in force
during one financial year for a given property. A proposal that could create
such a perception is not support-ed by the Deputy Valuer-General.
The LGA proposal has been discussed with the Crown Solicitor's
Office, which does not support it. Of the 69 local government areas, 21
adopted site values for the purpose of rating during the 1997-98 financial
year. A list of those councils is as follows: Orroroo-Carrieton, Gawler,
Peter-borough (2), Whyalla, Tumby Bay, Cleve, Port Lincoln, Adelaide Hills
(3), Renmark-Paringa, Berri-Barmera, Mount Remarkable, LeHunte (outside
townships only), Franklin Harbor, West Torrens, Port Pirie, Mount Gambier,
Port Augusta, Flinders Ranges (2), Streaky Bay, Ceduna, and Kimba.
The Hon. Ian Gilfillan: Will you repeat your preliminary comment?
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: They adopt site values for the purposes
of rating.
The Hon. Ian Gilfillan: They are, arguably, the only councils
which would be affected by this retrospectivity?
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: That is my understanding. A successful
objection late in the financial year can have budgetary ramifications for
local government authorities. A possible solution to overcome this budgetary
problem is for councils to make the adjustment following a successful objection
as a rebate on the following year's rates. The refund in rates due would
become a council debt in one financial year, but payable in another financial
year.
An assessment of the objections received in the 1996-97 financial
year in the regional centres of Port Lincoln, Whyalla, Port Augusta and
Port Pirie has revealed that a combined total of six objections were received
after 1 December 1996. Council rates are based on site value in these centres.
The combined total reduction in council rate revenue resulting from these
objections was $4 097. Not all those six properties would have received
accounts for land tax.
In accordance with a commitment from the Minister for Administrative
Services, discussions are now to take place with the Office of Local Government
and the Local Govern-ment Association in relation to this matter. It is
understood that the LGA is prepared to support the Bill on this basis.
The limited objection period proposal put forward by the Local Government
Association is not considered to be an acceptable variation to the proposal
approved by Cabinet and contained within the Valuation of Land (Miscellaneous)
Amendment Bill 1998.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: It is obvious that this matter has received
comprehensive attention, some of which I was not aware of. It also appears,
if that detail is correct, that the significance of the retrospectivity
in dollar terms is not likely to be very high. However, the only examples
cited were based on land tax. I am not sure how many of those councils
listed would be affected by SA Water rates where a site valuation is included.
So, there may be an expansion of the actual impact other than that which
has been identified in the answer.
In view of the Attorney's answer that the LGA is now relatively
relaxed and the suggestion that the adjustment to rates could be carried
over as a credit to the ratepayer in the next year, that appears to me
to be a reasonable way of approaching it. So, I indicate that, having heard
the explan-ation, apart from the one query about what impact (if any) SA
Water's rates would have on the total amount we are dealing with, I do
not intend to continue to object to that aspect of the Bill.
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I will have these issues further examined.
The matter does have to go back to the House of Assembly. It may well end
up in a deadlock conference in relation to the appointment of the Valuer-General.
In those circumstances, if any additional information has to be made available
in the light of the issues raised by the Hon. Mr Gilfillan, there is still
an opportunity for that to occur, albeit not in this Committee but in the
continuing consider-ation of the Bill.
Clause passed.
Clauses 13 to 17 passed.
Schedule.
The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I move:
Page 7, line 3óstrike out the item:
`Section 9(4)(b)
Strike out this paragraph and substitute the following paragraphs:
(b) resigns by written notice addressed to the Governor;
or
(ba) completes a term of office and is not reappointed; or'
and substitute the following item:
Section 9(4)(b)
Strike out this paragraph and substitute the following paragraph:
(b) resigns by written notice addressed to the Governor; or
This is consequential upon the amendment which I success-fully moved
when we last debated this Bill. It refers to the appointment of the Valuer-General.
As I pointed out then, the Opposition believes that the Valuer-General
should be appointed until his resignation; it should not be a five year
term. This amendment is consequential on that earlier amendment.
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I oppose the whole package of amendments
but I accept that it is consequential and therefore will not vote against
it.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I support the amendments.
Amendments carried; schedule as amended passed.
Title passed.
Bill read a third time and passed.
|
|