If you don’t object to your valuation you are agreeing with it. You are agreeing with the government legitimizing exorbitant price rises and making housing unaffordable for your children and grandchildren.
This is an objection I believe anyone could use. References 1 and 2 are to the Land Valuation Act 2010.
Valuations are based on the expected realization of a bona fide sale [17(1)]1.
A bona fide sale requires a willing, but not anxious, buyer and seller, with regard to the state of the market. [18(1)(a)]
These conditions cannot be reasonably met in a market that is overpriced to the extent that it is highly unaffordable and considered among the least affordable in the world, particularly for first home buyers, and where there is high demand and low supply. [18(2)(b)]2. This results in housing stress, as identified by the 30:40 rule (based on housing costs of at least 30 per cent of income and focusing on households in the bottom 40 per cent of the income distribution adjusted for household size), leading to a high level of anxiety among buyers.
The conditions of a bona fide sale cannot be met in the current market.
A median house price of about $1 million in Brisbane in September 2025 would require a loan repayment of about $68,000. This is 10% more than the gross household income for the lower 40% of gross household incomes! It is reasonable to expect that a Government would introduce policies that support affordable housing as indicated by the 30:40 rule.
It is not reasonable to expect that a sale at an exorbitant price, well outside the internationally recognized indicator of household stress, provides a reasonable indicator of what that land might be expected to realize in a bona fide sale.
My objection is that the intention of the Act to base valuations on a market where there is a stress free equilibrium between supply and demand cannot be met in the current market, and that my land should not have been revalued.
