I have had a lot to do with setting up and running incorporated societies over the years. The minimum number in those organisations, to actually get an organisation going, is 15. Even that, in my experience, is the bare minimum of people needed to set up an organisation that is functional, capable of governing itself, capable of managing itself, and capable of achieving any effect. I saw that having only two members would not be adequate in any way, either from the union point of view or from an organisation or legislative point of view. So through the process, I am very happy that the Government in the end agreed - and I think other parties
saw the sense in this - that actually 15 should be the bare minimum, and that this legislation should make sense and not run up against incorporated society legislation. So I thank those parties that have supported the Green Party on that. This is not to say that we think even 15 is really a viable number for a trade union. We had the debate in our party about what a viable number would be. Unfortunately, that ranged up to the thousands, so we stuck with 15.
The second matter I would like to talk about concerns clause 22, which deals with access of unions to sites. The Opposition has been talking about it at length. Our concerns were raised particularly when the word 'security' was added as a reason that employers could deny unions access to sites. It was added to health and safety at some point during the process. We became quite concerned that the addition of the word 'security' would give any employer a rationale to deny just about any union representative access to any work-site. There is security behind a shop counter, behind a bank counter, in a factory where machines are being operated, anywhere where there is money, and where there is client confidentiality. In just about any workplace, security could be a reason to deny access.
For this reason we have laid a Supplementary Order Paper, which we have now amended, on the Table. The new Supplementary Order Paper reads: '(5) Nothing in subsections (1) to (4) allows an employer to unreasonably deny a representative of a union access to a workplace'. We think that this amended Supplementary Order Paper makes great sense, and actually adds some conditionality to employers. Most of this section is about putting conditionality on union representatives. So I put forward this revised version and I am hoping for support for this Supplementary Order Paper shortly.
Finally, I would like to talk about clause 23, and about the condition relating to the Brethren, which Dr Smith has just been referring to. The Green Party did take a stand about this in favour of the Brethren.
Indeed, I have met with some criticism from Government colleagues and union friends about why the Green Party would support the Brethren. I would just like to read quickly from one of the Brethren documents about their beliefs. We have supported this change because of our respect for the diversity and sincerity of other people's religious beliefs.
They say that from their point of view: "Separation is maintained from all groups, unions or associations of a business, shareholding, property, political, pleasure, social, medical or superannuational nature. We have found in Jesus a satisfaction nothing in this passing world can compare with. Additionally, we are also governed by the Scriptures as to employing or being employed. There is special concern to maintain inviolate the direct employer to employee relationship": Having talked to representatives of the Brethren, of whom there are a large number in the district that Dr Smith, Penny Webster, and I come from, we are very conscious of their role as employers and business people in the district. I feel that the sincerity of their beliefs is unquestionable, and that there are very few, if any, other religious organisations in this country that could genuinely claim a similar set of beliefs.
Subscribe to email newsletters
