STATE’S LIABILITY

Hawera Star, Volume LI, 25 May 1932, Page 2

STATE’S LIABILITY

PAYMENT OF WATER PATES. AUCKLAND CONTROVERSY-. Another phase in the controversy concerning the State’s liability to pay local body rates has been reached in Auckland, where the City Council has cut off the water supply from properties in which the State Advances Department is interested. The supplies were cut off as arrears of water rates were owing when these properties reverted to the department, and the council has decided on the advice of the city solicitor to resist the department’s demand to have the services restored. WTiting in respect of six dwellings in the Point Chevalier and Avondale districts, an officer of the department stated that he was instructed to undertake to pay a reasonable charge foxwater supplied from the date when the department entered into possession. It was contended that a local authority had no power to cut off the water supply from a propei-ty in possession of the Crown for non-payment of water charges which became due prior to the time when the property came into the hands of the Crown, provided the Crown was willing to pay a fair and reasonable sum for water supplied thereafter.

The amount which the department was prepared to pay was the same as that charged to persons who obtained a supply for business purposes, a charge which had been accepted by many local'authorities throughout New Zealand as a basis in respect of a supply to Government departments. It was stated that if at the expiration of seven days the premises were not reconnected, the department would without further notice instruct the Crown Law Office to take proceedings in the Supreme Court for a mandatory injunction to enforce the provision of water to these premises. The city solicitor said he was unable to agree with the contention of the State Advances Office, his view of the position being that the Crown was not entitled to any preferential treatment in this respect. Aliy person was entitled as of right to demand a water supply from a body such as the City Council on paying the usual rates and other charges made by the council under its statutory powers. The Crown was, of course, not liable for rates, but it was bound to ; pay a reasonable charge in respect of water supplied, and in fixing such a charge the council was, he thought, entitled to charge on at least the same basis a:s it would charge a private individual requiring a water supply. . “I would advise the council to insist on the department paying any arrears of water charges, and also the reconnection fee as part of the charges for a water supply,” added the city solicitor. “The council’s case is further strengthened, I think, by the fact that the water is not required for the public service, and consequently the Crown has no prerogative right to water and stands on the same basis as a private individual.” The council decided to reply to tne department’s communication in terms of the city solocitor’s opinion.