Legislative Assembly Hansard 1886

Queensland Parliamentary Debates [Hansard] Legislative Assembly THURSDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 1886 Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy Motion fm• Arl;journrnent. [18 NovEMBER.] Motion for AdJou1'nment. 1763 "Rocklea.-The porter at present in charge of this station is paid at £100 per annum, as follows, namely:- Railway salary . £88 Postal 12 Total ... £100 Ho \Vas appointed in April, 1885, when the station was first opened, at a salary of £100 per annum. I enclose copy of his letter of appointment, from which yon will see that thP, salary-namely, £100-was distinctly stated to include postal duties. He has been paid in full, t~nd has never been asked t0 refund any part of the £100 at which he \Vas appointed. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. " Cooper's Plf~ins.--The gatekeeper in charge here is paid £13 by the R>tilway and £12 by the Postal Depart ment~ total, £25 per annum. Tlnwsday, 18 Novembe?', 1886. "Sunnybank.-The porter in charge at this station Message from Administrator of the Government. was appointed ·when the station first opened at a salary of £100 per annum, to include post and te~egraph Question.- ::\lotion for Adjournment- railway duties as well as ra,ilway. He has been paid accor station-masters' salarie:5.-Leavo of Absence to .lfr. dingly, and has never been asked to refund any part of l\Iorehead.-J.:Iossage from the Legislative Council that sum. Building Societies Bill.-\Va.. nviek to St. G-corg;e Railway-witnesse;;' cxpenses.-Supply-resumption "Betlmnia.~The porter at present in chn.rge of this of committee.-Adjournment. st::ltion was appointed in September last to the position of sta.tion-mastc~r, postmaster, and telegraph operator as follows:- The SPEAKER took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock. Rail way salary £78 Postal ,, 12 MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR Telegraph , 10 OF THE GOVERNMENT. Total £100 The SPEAKER said : I have to announce and he has been paid according-ly. The previous officel' \Yas appointed at a salary of £100 pm· annum to include the receipt of a message from His }<;xcellency the post and telrgraph duties. He wns paid in full a.nd tho Administrator of tlie Government, forward was neYer askell to refund any part of that amount. ing· the Supplementary Estimates No. 2, for "Logan Villnge.-The porter at present in charge 188.'5-G, and the Loan Estimates for 11-iSG-7. wns nppointecl in June, 1886, at £101. per annum, made up as follows:- On the motion of the COLONIAL TRF.A SUllER, the Estimates were ordered to be Railway salary ... £86 printed, n,nd referred to the Committee of Postal 18 8upply. 'rotal ... £101 QUESTION. He has been paid accordingly, and has never made any Mr. G ItHIES asked the lVIinister for 'Vorks- complaint. The previous officer was atlpointed when the station opened in September, 1885, at £132 per 1. Have instrnctiuns been giYen for a trinl surYcy of annum, to include postnl duties, and he was paid a branch railway line from Indooroopilly to Brook accordingly at the rate of £132. tielil? ·'Themisunderstanding in regard to this matter arose 2. "\Yhen is the survey likely to be commenced ? last year. \Vhen the South Coast line was opened, I The MINISTER FOR WORKS (Hon. W. pointed out the advisability of the officers in char~e of station~ being paid one salaiT, to include post and Miles) replied- telegraph duties. The Postal Department, however, The Chief l~ngineer has been instructed to make a objected to this in a letter addressed to the Uncler trial survey from Indooroopilly to J~rookfield as soon as Secretary for Railways. and dated ~I::ty, 1885. This a surveyor is available for the service. letter was never communicated to me, and in making up the pay-sheets I entered the full salary, inclusive of MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT. the Post and 'l'elegraph allowances, in accordance with the arrangement approYed of by you. RAILWAY STATION-MASTERs' SALAI\IES. "I aftenvards discovered tbat the Postal Department were paying theh· portion of the salaries to the officers The 1\IINISTER FOR WORKS sa.id: Mr. direct instead of through the Railway Depnrtment. It Speaker,-I arn desirouR of giving an explana will be ~een that each officer has all along been paid in tion to hon. members in connection with the fnll, but for the period between April, 1885, and ·Ianua.ry, matter which was referred to last night when the 1R8li, they accepted pay for the ~amc duties from both departments. It was this money over-paid prior to the E8timates were passing through in connection 1st l<'ebrun.ry last which I asked them to refund, and the with the salaries of the station-masters. I amounts refunded have aU been duly credited in the instructed the Commissioner this morning to railway accounts. get a report from the tmffic manager on the sub ''Since 1st Pcbruary last the Rail,vay Department jAct. That report has been furnished and I will has paid its own proportion of the salary ngrecd upon now read it to the House :- lJetwecn the offieers on one part and the department on the other. and there can be no misunderstanding in the "l\ir.~w. fnlure. 1'hero never \YOnld have been any misunder "In accordance with your verbal request of this standing if the Postal Department's letter of ).:lay, 18H5, morning I have the honour to report on the salaries, had been commnnicated to me, or if the officers them Sonih Coast ltailway. ns follows:- solve" had drawn attentiOn to the fact that they were "South Coast Junction.-The pre~ent officer in charge being paid twice for the same duties. of this stf~tion was a;ppointed 1st ~ept. lnst at a salary "I have not addressed a letter on tl1is subject to of £120 per annum, made up as follows:- any of the officers in question since tile month of l\iarch last, nor have they made any complaint to llle Railway salary... £~8 Postal , 12 duriug that time. I certainly understood the whole Telegraph , ... 10 matter was disvo::;ed of then. The officers have the right of :t ppen.l to lhe Cmnmisi',ioncr. for Puaihn1ys, and thh facility for redressing their gr1evancos they have Total ·-- £120 never availcrl. them~elvcs of. and he has been llflid accorrlin;:dy. Ho ha'-' never marlc "In conclusion I may point out that my reasons for any complaint and has never been asked by me to r~mit re(~Onnnending that the ltailway Department shoulrt. m1y part of the alJove. pay all the salaries clue to its officers, and colleet from "The previous oflicer was aupointed in }larch 1885, nt the other departments the moiety due by them, was a salarr of £120 per annum inclu!';ivc of all llnt,ics the difficulty I experienced in selecting officers for the connected with the Post and 'relcgraph Department as more important positions. It is not ~o long ago that well as the Railway. He W<ts 1_mid al the rate of £120 the ~tation-mastcr at Oxley made a better income than per annum from the time ot his appointment until the one at Brisbane, and would have looked upon pro removed to nethania. motion to Brisbane or Ipswich as a decided reduction." 1764 Motion fa?' Adjournment. [ASSEMBLY.] Leave qf Absenre to Mr. More head. I think that explains the whole matter, Mr. mistn,ke, they ~tre £12 short in their salaries, ~tnd Speaker. The mistake arose through the Postal that thrtt amount has never heen made up to Department paying their share while the Rail them. It may hr~ve occurred through the station way Department paid the whole salary, and the masters removing from one pbce to another. officers were conse<1uently paid twice for the per 'l'he statement of the traffic m~tnager bears out formance of the same duties. That was about the correctness of what I said-that letters had twelve months ago, and since that time each been sent. It was denied last nig-ht; hut with department has paid its own share. some trouble I could have produced half-a-dozen The HoN. J. M. MACROSSAN: Move the of those letters. It remains yet to be seen whether adjournment. some of the st~ttion-masters are not losers to the extent of £12. The MINISTER FOR WORKS I beg to move the adjournment of the House. Question put and neg-atived. 'l'he HoN. J. M. MACROSSAN said: Mr. LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO MR. Speaker,-\Ye have heard the statement written MO REREAD. by the traffic manager, and a portion of it entirely contradicts the statement made by the Mr. NORTON, in moving- Minister for \Vorks last night. The Minister That leave of ahsencc for the whole of the present for \Vorks last night stated distinctly that no session be granted to the 1lononl'able mmnbcr for letters were ever written to those officers to Ralonnc, ".'\Ir. E. D. 1\iorohead- retnrn any moneys paid them by the Post Office said: l\fr. Speaker,-This motion is rather an anthorities. I knew at the time that that state unnsua.l one-quitn an nnnRtutl one in this ment was incorrect, antl I conld not say upon House-and therefore I think it is dosimble to what authority the Minister made it, but it nnu;t ofier some exphtnatinn to the House why it was have been on the authoritv of the officer who in tabled, more especially at this late period of the the statement just now" read admits that he session.

Load more