NEW ZEALAND PRODUCTS

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 40, 10 November 1921, Page 6

NEW ZEALAND PRODUCTS

distribution in north of ENGLAND "Tho Government oil that is possible to encourage the distribution of New- Zealand products in tho North of England through such ports, as Hull, Liverpool, and Manchester, . was the comment of the Primo Minister, when m p S Malcolm (Cliitha) quoted a a foment Io tho effect that the coSt of delivering raw wool at Bradford was from London, 89s. 2d. per ton, and from Manchester docks only 13s. 2d.

MENACE OF TRUSTS A STATEMENT CONTRADICTED. "This is an exceedingly grave statement, and its gravity is accentuated by the fact that it is incorrect,’ said the Minister of Agriculture, commenting yesterday upon the following statement, which Sir George Hunter (Waipawa) quoted from the report of a speech by Mr. W. J. Polson, president of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union-. "While the Government iaro worrying about Armour and Co.- not shipping their meat they are not worrying about trusts actually owning freezing works in New Zealand -without a word from .the Government. “The question of Armour and Co. has to bo decided upon its individual merits,” said Mr. Noswort'hy, after making the remark quoted above. "So, also, the affairs of other companies operating in the meat trade are considered on tho individual merits of each case, the utmost care having to be exercised in view of the very drastic powers held by the Government in connection with licenses. The Government already has available a mass of information regarding companies engaged in the meat trade in New Zealand. Its inquiries and observations are continuing,'had it is quite prepared to act at any time when necessity arises for- action in the true interests of the producers of the Dominion. “NO EXPLANATION NEEDED” PUBLIC WORKS APPRENTICES. The following series of questions was recently addressed by Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) to the Minister of Public Works: (1) Are tho apprentices in the Public Works Department legally bound by indentures? (2) Are they allowed to contribute to the superannuation fund? (3) Were they treated in all matters, including leave of absence and holidays, as permanent employees up to January, 1921? (4) Were they notified in January of this year that they were to be ranked and' treated henceforth as temporary employees, and that they would not receive any pay when absent on account of sickness or when granted special leave, and that they were to be treated similarly to temporary employees in the matter of holiday privileges? (5) Did not such notification, if served on the apprentices, amount to a serious alteration of the conditions existing when the indentures were signed by apprentices engaged and bound prior to the notification, and, consequently, practically constitute a breach of faitn, if not of contract, with the indentured apprentices? (G) 'What explanation and justification, if any, can be advanced for the extraordinary action of his Department? The Minister yesterday gave the following replies;—"(l) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) No. (4) In consequence of section 39 of the War Legislation and Statute Law Amendment Act, 1918. which provides that apprentices shall be deemed to be permanent employees of the Public Service only within the meaning of and for the purposes of the Public Service Classification and Superannuation Act, 1908, but not within the meaning of and for the purposes of tho Public Service Act, 1912, apprentices wore informed in February, 1919, that they ranked as temporary employees. (5) No. (6) No explanation is called for."