H.—35

substitution of optional for compulsory arbitration. We quite realize that there is tremendous difficulty in suddenly changing a system which has been in operation for thirty-odd years. We wish to bring about this substitution of optional for compulsory arbitration, not so much in itseif —what we are aiming at is that employers and workers shall accept the responsibility for framing their own awards and agreements. In the past we fear that both sides have shirked that responsibility, and have been too inclined to follow the easy road of putting the burden on the shoulders of the Court of Arbitration. We want to establish a sense of responsibility in the minds of the leaders of industrial organizations on both sides, and we want them to do their own work in the framing of their awards and agreements. We believe that our proposals will afford an opportunity for that to be done. While they do afford the opportunity for that experiment to be tried, and to be gradually extended and developed, they preserve intact the whole of the existing machinery, so that if our experiment is a failure it will be quite easy to revert to the position as it is to-day. At the same time we do not think we will ever go back if there is honest co-operation between our respective organizations. If we once secure that sense of responsibility which will impel the organizations to do their own work and make their own awards and agreements, we do not believe that there will be any desire to revert to the system of compulsory arbitration, but if our efforts should fail we are not disturbing the present industrial machinery by these proposals. It will remain intact, and it will only be necessary for us to admit our failure and resume the old method of referring matters in dispute to the Court: the machinery will be available for us to make use of it. Before concluding I want to make an appeal, as earnestly as I possibly can. In this Conference we have assembled the representatives of the New Zealand labour organizations and the representatives of all sections of employers, and to us the Government has entrusted the task of framing legislation to suit our own needs. All that is required to enable us to turn out a perfect job is a little bit of courage —just sufficient courage to take the plunge into waters which may appear to be cold. We must realize that it is necessary for us to think nationally upon this subject. We cannot allow sectional interests to warp our judgment. We cannot allow a sympathetic desire, however honest, to protect weaker interests to influence us sufficiently to make us depart from what we believe to be vital principles. It would not be right if we did not endeavour to safeguard in every possible way the weaker interests ; and we are making that endeavour because it is only right that we should do so. But it would not be right to allow our sympathetic consideration for weaker interests to cause us to depart from what we believe is the essential amendment to this arbitration system of ours. My belief, sir, is that the delegates on both sides will think nationally upon this question, that they will sink any desire to secure any immediate advantage for their own particular interests, and that they will agree to plunge into the water in spite of its looking cold, and will honestly- co-operate with one another in making a new attempt to create the right atmosphere and the right machinery for the adjustment of differences in industry. If that is done, sir, this Conference will be an historic occasion. It will be a landmark in industrial progress, and every one of us will have reason to look back upon it with some pride and some satisfaction at having played his part in it. Mr. Roberts : Mr. Chairman, I think it is only wise to apprise you and the Conference of the fact that, owing to lack of knowledge as to how the final papers should be presented, the workers' section has not prepared its independent report for submission to this Conference. We did not know until this morning that the employers' report would be presented in this form. It was decided, therefore, at the Business Committee that the workers' report should be presented to every delegate after the luncheon adjournment. We had the paper ready to read, and we thought that that would be the procedure adopted ; but we desire every delegate to have a copy of the paper and to understand just what it means. I may say that our recommendations and our report to you, Mr. Chairman, and the Conference are contained in the one paper. The same report will come to you as to the Government. I wish to know, Mr. Chairman, if you will give me permission, without losing my right to speak later on, to ask Mr. Bishop one or two questions regarding his paper ? I wish to ask them, not for the purpose of debate or argument, but because the replies, if they are as I think they will be, would obviate the necessity for discussion. I would like to know whether you would give me permission to ask him one or two questions on his paper. The Chairman : I was just wondering what was supposed to be done—whether the other side desire discussion on the paper or are prepared to answer questions on it. Are you prepared to answer questions on the paper, Mr. Bishop ? Mr. Bishop : Yes ; I would be very glad to do so. Questions. Mr. Roberts : The first question I would ask is in regard to clause 1, which states that "When in conjunction with any industry there are persons other than actual employers or workers in the industry whose business interests are directly or substantially dependent on the industry, any organization of such persons shall be entitled to appear in any proceedings before a Council or a Court in relation to such industry in every respect as if it were a principal party to the proceedings." Does that mean that the third party should also appoint assessors ? It certainly says so here. Is that the intention ? Mr. Bishop : No, that is not the intention ; nor is it the wording. Appearance before a Council or a Court is a well-known term, and the provisions for the appointment of assessors are entirely different. The wording is practically the wording of the present Act providing for third-party representation. The Act says that such organizations " shall be entitled to appear in any proceedings before a Council or a Court in relation to such industry in every respect as if it were a principal party to the proceedings." It gives power to appear before a Council or Court just as any other party being a party to the dispute, but not power to appoint assessors.

220