The Chairman of the Repatriation Commission has forwarded me the following memorandum for advice:

1. It is understood that the Act relating to the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works exempts certain institutions-it is believed that 'charitable' institutions are specified-from any payments to the Board for the supply of water, and the question has been raised as to the exemption of various medical institutions conducted by this Department from such charges.
2. These institutions consist of:

[List of various types of institutions, with detailed description of purposes, omitted.}

3. In each case the institution is conducted at the expense of the Commonwealth Government, but contributions by the public, by patriotic bodies, or by Red Cross Societies are accepted. The only persons eligible for benefits are Australian soldiers as defined in the Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Act 1920 and such cases as the Department of Defence or the Department of the Navy refers for treatment. In these cases reimbursement is obtained from the Department concerned.

In New South Wales all institutions except the Repatriation Hospital are controlled by the Red Cross Society or the A.J.C. (Canonbury Hostel for Totally & Permanently Incapacitated Soldiers) but maintained at the expense of the Department.

4. In all Repatriation General Hospitals, except Brisbane, Fremantle and Hobart, water up to a certain consumption is supplied without charge. At the Consumptive Sanatorium, Melbourne, it is supplied free, and at the Convalescent Farm, Victoria, it is supplied free up to a certain consumption.
5. I should be glad of advice as to whether it is considered that any or all of the institutions mentioned in paragraph (2) are legally exempt in any or all States from charges for water supplied, i.e. if they are considered to come within the meaning of the words 'charitable institutions' (if those are the institutions exempt by the various relative Acts); and, if so, whether refunds of charges already paid can be obtained. Whilst it is considered only fair that the Commonwealth should bear its due proportion of the cost of public utilities such as the supply of water, it is pointed out that all Commonwealth buildings (as distinct from Commonwealth medical institutions) are exempt from the payment of municipal rates, which are levied for the construction and maintenance of roads, public lighting, removal of household refuse etc., and therefore it may not be considered inequitable that medical institutions such as those mentioned in paragraph (2), provided that they are legally exempt under the various relative Acts, should not pay for the supply of water. On the other hand, it is feared that refusal to pay the charge might result in friction, and I should be glad of any advice which can be given as to the general practice.

The Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works Act 1915, section 94, enacts that the Board shall keep laid on for use without charge a sufficient supply of water for supplying any public hospitals or charitable institutions.

All the institutions mentioned in the above memorandum are established under the authority of the Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Act 1920. I do not think the objects of that Act can be properly described as charitable.

The purpose of the Act is rather to provide means whereby the Commonwealth can observe its obligations for services rendered.

In my opinion an exemption from water rates in favour of a charitable institution cannot be relied upon to secure a free supply of water for institutions mentioned nor a refund of rates already paid.

[Vol. 18, p. 233]