406 HIGH COURT 4 H.C. or A. Act 1915 from being deprived of their employment by the prohibiti 1931. : which is now sec. 68 (1). JosKE T am of opinion that the appeal should be allowed with co ts Wario ear Appeal allowed with costs. Order of Macfar set aside and in lieu thereof order absolute with costs. Order of Court of P Sessions set aside and defendant co and fined five pounds with five guineas a Solicitor for the appellant, Ernest Joske. Solicitors for the respondent, W. E. Pearcey & Ivey. H.D.W {HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.) THE FEDERAL COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION App PLAINTIFF, AND THE VICTORIAN HARDWARE CLUB. . Responp DEFENDANT, 5 H.C. ov A. Entertainments Tax (Cth.)— Entertainment—Club's annual picnic— Boat 1931. Incidental attractions—Whether an entertainment—Entertainments Tax Asse i ment Act 1916-1924 (No. 36 of 1916—No. 52 of 1924), secs. 2, 11. Metuourns, i A club held its annual picnic for which it made a charge to cover the o¢ of a boat ticket and also provided music and incidental attractions in a park engaged for the occasion for admission to which no further charge made. . Held, that the function was not an entertainment within the meanin the Federal Entertainments Tax Assessment Act 1916-1924. C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA. OrpER NISI to review. A complaint was laid by the Commissioner of Taxation against the Victorian Hardware Club alleging that the Club was, on 10th "March 1930, at Melbourne, indebted to the Commissioner in the sum of £16 8s., being the amount of entertainments tax alleged to be due and payable by the Club under the provisions of the Federal Entertainments Tax Assessment Act 1916-1924 and the Regulations 'made thereunder and the Entertainments Tax Act 1916-1925 in respect of the Annual Hardware Picnic held on 10th March 1930. _The complaint was heard in the Court of Petty Sessions at Mel- bourne on 26th February 1931. From the evidence it appeared that the Club chartered the paddle steamer Weeroona from Port Melbourne to Sorrento and back. The tickets for the picnic were procurable by the public. The Club engaged the park at Sorrento, but raised no objection to members of the public entering while the picnic was being held, and also provided amusements there for the people who attended the picnic, and provided bands on the boat and in the park. The only charges made were for adults 4s. and for children -2s., which was for the boat trip, and it was stated that hot water and milk would be provided free. The only other charges made were for entering into the competitions arranged at the picnic. The complaint was dismissed. In dismissing the complaint the Police Magistrate said:—" The argument seems to resolve itself into the question is the picnic an entertainment which is held from 'the time the boat leaves Port Melbourne until it returns, or is the boat trip a means provided by the Club to allow its members to teach the place where the picnic is to be held, namely, at Sorrento, Tam inclined to think that the purchase of the ticket is for the boat ssage only. The case is dismissed with £3 3s. costs against the iplainant."" From this decision the Commissioner of Taxation now appealed the High Court by order nisi to review. Pullagar, for the appellant. There is one whole function provided, eginning with the embarkation on the boat and ending with the disembarkation. [He referred to the Entertainments Tax Assessment H.C. oF A. 1931. Ww FEDERAL Comans- SIONER OF Taxatron v. Vicrortan HaRDWARE Crue. H.C. oF A. 1931. Ww Feprrau Commis- SIONER OF TAXATION v VicroRIAN Harpware Cuus. Rich J. HIGH COURT Act 1916-1924, secs. 2, 11; Lyons & Co. v. Fox (1); Federa Commissioner of Taxation v. Bendrodt (2); Clyde v. Bolot and Cordiner v. Stockham (4).] Sholl, for the respondent, was not called upon. The following judgments were delivered :— Ricu J. I think the facts in this case show that the function o diversion, to use a neutral term, was not an entertainment the meaning of the Act. If the function is separated into parts, the trip in the boat admittedly was not an entertain But it was the only part for which " payment" was made. picnic in the park was not an entertainment. No " payn was made for it. The persons who went in the boat might or not go into the park. Persons outside the Club and not particip in the function, who had not travelled by the boat, might have g into the park—a public park—and joined in the function. But Mr. Fullagar says we must combine the two factors and treat the matter as a whole. Be it so, the combination cannot be said to be an entertainment for which payment was made by a spectator ot member of the audience. I think the Magistrate came to the ri conclusion, and that the order nisi should be discharged with co Srarke J. There was no entertainment in this case. Dixon J. I concur. I think the Magistrate was entitled to fi d that there was no payment for admission to an entertainm within the meaning given to those words by sec. 2 of the # ments Tax Assessment Act 1916-1924. I do not think that those w bought tickets could be said to have made payments for admission as spectators or members of an audience to an entertainment. Evarr J. In my opinion the tickets were sold to enable holders to have a day's outing at the seaside for themselves a1 their children. Boat transport was the essential thing, and tl (1) (1919) 1 K.B. 11. (3) (1924) 34 CLR. 144, (2) (1920) 28 G.LLR. 101. (4 (1920) 1 KB. 104. OLR.) OF AUSTRALIA. 409 "attractions" at Sorrento were subordinate. What was paid for #- ne Be was not an entertainment and, if there was any entertainment at ee: | it was not paid for. FEDERAL Serrano, g Comms: : SIONER OF - McTiernan J. I agree. eke Seey Victorian Order nisi discharged. HARDWARE Crus. Solicitor for the Commissioner of Taxation, W. H. Sharwood, Crown Solicitor for the Commonwealth. Solicitor for the respondent, Eggleston & Eggleston. ; ; H.D. W. [HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.} HE AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE STAFFS') 00 FEDERATION. . . Suae te 'HE ATLAS ASSURANCE COMPANY ) LIMITED AND OTHERS ; rey RESPONDENTS. Industrial Arbitration—Industrial dispute—Log served by employees claiming salary H.C. ov A. at stated rate—Log served by employers suggesting salary at lower rale—Award 1931. "fixing salary at an intermediate rate—Application by employers to reduce award een ates rate by ten per cent—Reduction of award rate below amount offered by employers Sept, 28 eae —Jurisdiction of Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court to reduce salary © Pye gS below that amount—Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1930 (No. 13 of 1904—No. 43 of 1930), secs. 2144, 28 (3). '4n award cannot be made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and _'Dixen' Arbitration prescribing a minimum wage lower than any amount in difference metiorwan JJ. "in the industrial dispute, and, unless a new industrial dispute extending beyond one State has arisen, an award cannot be varied so as to prescribe such a minimum wage. VoL. XLv, 27 DWs7T 47 ECR AL ax Raper fo BOELR BA