In rising to participate in the debate on the Valuation of Land and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 I would like to address the importance of the valuation system to Queensland. Every year State Valuation Services in the Department of Environment and Resource Management provides valuations to property owners across Queensland. These valuations are critical to local and state governments as the basis for determining rates, land tax and state land rental. How valuations are undertaken and their validity impacts every Queenslander in one way or another. This bill introduces amendments to give certainty to the way in which valuations have been prepared so that Queenslanders can have confidence that their valuations are assessed on a consistent and legislatively sound basis and so ensure equity for all landowners. Opposition members have spent the last hour trotting out every bit of scare tactic they could. Once again they have shown no concern for the running of the state of Queensland in a sensible and sound manner to ensure certainty in the valuation system.

Under the Valuation of Land Act 1944, State Valuation Services makes valuations of up to 1.6 million properties in Queensland. The valuations are undertaken in a professional manner using a longstanding legislative process for the valuation of land in its unimproved state. This process has been used in Queensland for many years. The use of land valuations is considered to be the most effective basis for revenue gathering and occurs throughout Australia and in many other countries. It is used as a basis for the collection of rates by local governments, land tax by Queensland Treasury and state land rental by the Department of Environment and Resource Management. It is critical that landowners have confidence in the system.

The Court of Appeal decision in December 2009 relating to Pacific Fair Shopping Centre in effect will change the way in which State Valuation Services undertakes its valuations. The court’s interpretation of the legislation has, in fact, created two methodologies in how a valuation is determined: one methodology for commercial and industrial properties and one for residential properties. If the court’s decision was to stand, the ramifications of the decision would be to drastically reduce valuations for commercial, industrial and multiunit properties but not for residential properties. It would also require the refund of revenue by local governments and Queensland Treasury. The outcome of this would be that local governments’ ability to undertake necessary public works could have been seriously impacted to the detriment of local landowners. This uncertainty cannot be allowed to continue. The procedures set out in this bill restore surety to the revenue base.

I received in my office yesterday a letter from the Office of the Mayor, Councillor Allan Sutherland, for the Moreton Bay Regional Council. It is dated 5 March and he wrote it to the Premier. Throughout it he says things such as-

This Bill responds to a ruling in the Court of Appeal and is designed to protect ‘mum and dad’ ratepayers, and in turn their councils, from having to meet any large shortfalls in revenue caused by the retrospective re-evaluation of commercial properties and shopping centres.

Mr Sutherland goes on to say-

Should last year’s court decision stand, Moreton Bay Regional Council’s revenue loss could be in the vicinity of $26 million, or an additional cost of $6.75 for every ratepayer per million dollars lost. Effectively this means Moreton Bay’s 120,000 residential ratepayers will end up subsidising the rating obligations of the commercial and property sector.

He goes on to talk about the fact that the Moreton Bay Regional Council is committed to keeping residential rate rises to a minimum as part of the amalgamation process and he has told me that last year that council delivered one of the lowest rate increases in South-East Queensland. The council has been able to achieve this by reducing triplication across the three former councils to deliver $9.1 million in savings last financial year and an anticipated $10 million this year. He further states in his letter-

To now face a $26 million shortfall would send our council and the community backwards-and significantly derail our efforts to make amalgamation work for our community.

He finishes up by saying-
Once again, I appreciate and value the Bligh government’s actions to date and your intention to support, assist and protect councils across Queensland.

It would appear that Councillor Allan Sutherland and the Moreton Bay Regional Council get it, it seems that all the members on this side of the House get it, but once again the LNP members have shown that they fundamentally cannot understand good legislative process and protecting our community and making sure there is fairness across the system.

Without the amendments in this bill the decision of the Court of Appeal would have a major impact on local government’s provision of essential services to all Queenslanders, services such as road maintenance, public parks and recreation reserves, libraries and so many more things. The amendments in this bill will ensure that residential ratepayers will not be adversely impacted and local governments can continue to provide these valuable services.

How do the amendments do that? The amendments make sure that the way in which statutory
valuations have always been undertaken does not change. The amendments confirm that the valuations that have been issued have been issued correctly and that the valuations that have been issued in the past in local government areas across Queensland will not change. That means that the proportion of rates or land tax that residential landholders pay will not have to change.

Despite claims that have been made by peak property industry bodies, the amendments are not a new tax on Queenslanders. What this bill provides for is clarification of the valuation system in Queensland to ensure equity and fairness to all property owners in Queensland. The government is committed to ensuring that all properties in Queensland are valued using the same process. The amendments ensure that big business does not gain a windfall at the expense of ordinary landowners. The government has moved quickly to protect the revenue base of local governments and to ensure that landowners are not deprived of those essential services that are expected to be provided by this level of government. It has also moved to protect the state government’s revenue base to allow it to meet its commitment to provide services to the people of Queensland. I congratulate the minister, his staff and his department on drafting this sensible and very important legislation. I commend the bill to the House.