The Secretary, Department of External Affairs, has forwarded the following memorandum for advice:

Some time ago buildings were erected at Darwin by the Commonwealth Government for the use of Government officials for residential purposes at a certain rent per annum. The buildings are situated on Crown Lands.

The District Council of Darwin has now intimated that under the District Councils Act No. 419 of 1887 the owners are rateable.

I shall be glad if you will kindly favour me with advice on the matter.

By section 6 of the District Councils Act 1887 of the State of South Australia, an Act continued in force in the Northern Territory, rateable property means all lands and hereditaments (including land belonging to the Crown) with the following exceptions, viz.:

1. land belonging to the Crown and not granted nor lawfully contracted to be granted to any person in fee simple, or for an estate of freehold, and not leased nor in the occupation of any person;
2. lands and buildings, and parts of lands and buildings, used exclusively by the Government for any public purpose;
3. any hospital, lunatic asylum, benevolent institution or building used exclusively for charitable purposes;
4. any church, chapel, or building used exclusively for public worship; and
5. any building or part of a building used exclusively as a school, whether public or private.

Unless the occupiers of the land can claim exemption under one of the exemptions above quoted, the land is rateable.

In the case in question the land and buildings are used by the occupiers for residential purposes, and I do not think the land comes within any of the exemptions above quoted.

It may be argued that as the occupiers are required by the Crown to reside in the buildings, the buildings are being used for public purposes, and that the occupation is in reality the occupation of the Crown by its servants.

Such a contention was disposed of in the South Australian case of Corporation of Gawler v. Baldwin 1907 S.A.L.R. 54 and the case of Martin v. Assessment Committee of West Derby 11 Q.B.D. 145, therein referred to.

In the case of the Corporation of Gawler v. Baldwin, the section of the Municipal Corporations Act there construed included the words 'and not occupied as a place of private residence' after the words 'lands etc. used exclusively by the Government for any public purpose', but on the principle laid down in that case and the English cases cited, I think that the same construction would be applied to section 6 of the District Councils Act. In my opinion, the lands and buildings are not lands and buildings used exclusively by the Government for any public purpose, and the occupiers are rateable under the District Councils Act 1887.

[Vol.13, p.346]