POST OFFICE REFUSE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16694, 28 March 1922, Page 7

POST OFFICE REFUSE.

I COUNCIL MUST COLLECT IT. | CHIEF POSTMASTER IN REPLY. I wish to make it perfectly clear that in refusing to pay the City Conn ( il for the removal of refuse from the Post Office, .1 have acted entirely on instructions received from my Depart- i merit., *’ stated Mr .1 K. Broadfoot, the Chief Postmaster, in re 1 ' 1 - to a question put to him by a “ Star ” reporter this morning. “The members of the City Council know perfectly ■well.’’ added Mr Broadfoot, “that they have no authority to refuse to collect our refuse, and furthermore that the Department is under no obligation to pay ! for such removal. In the past the | account has been paid by the Depart- ’ ment. but the time hits arrived when the Department has to curtail its ex- i pendituro and not to he quite so generous a.s it has been in the past. See- j ing that the matter was discussed by tho council, 1 think the whole of the correspondence should have been placed before the councillors in older to make them conversant with the facts.” Mr Broadfoot explained that he had l>ecn acting on instructions received, lie could only administer the law as it, stood and any future correspondence \ dealing with the matter would have ; to he sent bv him to the Secret arv of the Post Office. THE CORRESPOXDF.XCI^ The correspondence between the City Council and the Department dealing ‘ with the dispute was made available i to the reporter by the Town Clerk. ! On February 13, the Chief Post- | master wrote to the Town Clerk stat- j ing that with reference to the account i from the City Council for £G 4s Gd lor removal of dust and rubbish from the Post Office premises for the quarter ended December 31, 1921. ho was directed to inform him that it was claimed that a demand for payment lor such services should not be mad on the. Department- In the circumstances he regretted that he could not pass tho claim. The Town Clerk replied on February ‘2O, stating that the account for the removal of refuse had been rendered 10 tlie Post and Telegraph Department for years, and had never previously been disputed, lie would be obliged if the Chief Postmaster would forward the account to the proper quarter. The Chief Postmaster notified the Town Clerk that his letter had been forwarded to the Secretary of the Department, and lie had been directly instructed to reply as follows: •By the Health Act, 1920 (section j 33), the express statutory duty is cast I upon any local authority of undertaking or contracting for the removal of house refuse and the rubbish, etc:., within its district. If default be made in so doing in respect of any premises, .t tine may be inflicted on the local authority—or its contractor, as the case may be. All expenses incurred by tho local authority in the matter may he paid by the local authority out of its general funds; but a special rate may be made and levied to cover such expenses. If the local authority fails to perform its statutory duty of removing house refuse, rubbish, etc., as above, the Board of Health itself may do the work, and the expenses so incurred may be recovered as a debt due to the Crown from the local authority in default, or may be deducted from any moneys payable to that local authority out of the Public Account by way of subsidy or otherwise. ‘' It is further provided by the Municipal Corporations Act, 1920 ( section 39), that where the council itself undertakes or contracts for the removal of refuse, it may make a separate rate to cover such expenditure, or levy a uniform fee, which shall bo recoverable as a rate. Section 384 of tho same. Act provides that nothing in the Act shall apply to any property of any kind belonging to, or vested in, his Majesty the King. “ In the present state of the law of Xew Zealand, it therefore appears that (1) it is tho fluty of a local authority to remove house refuse, etc., from any premises within its district; (2; that a local authority may be compelled by law to perform its duty in that respect; (3) that a local authority may charge for the services rendered by a rate or uniform fee. and (4) that such iate or fee cannot be recovered in respect of Crown buildings. I would further point out.” added the Chief Postmaster, “ that it is tho legal duty of the loc*l authority to remove house refuse from Crown buildings, notwithstanding the fact that no ' rate or fee can legally be recovered i from the Crown in respeet of the same. I •• The frequently expressed idea that j the Government does not pay rates : is ;in erroneous one. Through the operi action of the subsidy system now in ; vogue the general Government is now j far and away the largest ratepayer jin the Dominion. I have also to re- ] mind you that the Government sup- ! plies the police force, which at the cost of the Government itself, supplies protection to their citizens, controls the local traffic and renders valuable services by enforcing by-laws for the J benefit of local bodies and to the great , relief of ratepayers. With these facts I placed before you, you will no doubt agree -that the charge is not one .which should be made against this Department.”