Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer is "on the wrong side of humanity." 

It's after Starmer called for an end to the war in Gaza. 

Meanwhile 20 prisons in England will pilot the chemical castration of sex offenders, and Denmark's set to have the highest retirement age - 70-years-old.

UK Correspondent Gavin Grey talks to Heather du Plessis-Allan. 

LISTEN ABOVE. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer is "on the wrong side of humanity."&nbsp;
It's after Starmer called for an end to the war in Gaza.&nbsp;
Meanwhile 20 prisons in England will pilot the chemical castration of sex offenders, and Denmark's set to have the highest retirement age - 70-years-old.
UK Correspondent Gavin Grey talks to Heather du Plessis-Allan.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE.&nbsp;

With a straight down the middle approach, Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive on Newstalk ZB delivers the very latest news and views to New Zealanders as they wrap up their day.

Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive

Gavin Grey: UK Correspondent on Benjamin Netanyahu's comments about Kier Starmer, the prison's trialling chemical castration, Denmark's rising retirement age

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/65862403-e96d-4a10-93bf-b2e600768fd2/transcript

Listen to the Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive Full Show Podcast for Tuesday 17 June.

Get the Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive Full Show Podcast every weekday evening on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Listen to the Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive Full Show Podcast for Tuesday 17 June. 
Get the Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive Full Show Podcast every weekday evening on iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Full Show Podcast: 17 June 2025 

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/17531829-20fe-445e-8b14-b2ff0076b4fa/transcript

The Government has unveiled new changes for Employment Relations Act aimed at improving labour market flexibility - but it's raised some concerns.

One of the proposed changes includes introducing an income threshold of $180,000 above which a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal cannot be pursued.

Director and Head of Practice at Jennifer Mills & Associates, Jennifer Mills, says this threshold seems 'arbitrary'.

"I would have thought that all employees would have the right to access these grievance protections - what's worse is somebody who earns over $180,000 doesn't have a right to have any information about the decision to terminate their employment and they don't even have an opportunity to respond to a proposal."

LISTEN ABOVE

The Government has unveiled new changes for Employment Relations Act aimed at improving labour market flexibility - but it's raised some concerns.
One of the proposed changes includes introducing an income threshold of $180,000 above which a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal cannot be pursued.
Director and Head of Practice at Jennifer Mills &amp; Associates, Jennifer Mills, says this threshold seems 'arbitrary'.
"I would have thought that all employees would have the right to access these grievance protections - what's worse is somebody who earns over $180,000 doesn't have a right to have any information about the decision to terminate their employment and they don't even have an opportunity to respond to a proposal."
LISTEN ABOVE

Jennifer Mills: Director and Head of Practice at Jennifer Mills & Associates on the Government's new Employment Relations Amendment Bill

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/483184cd-7d53-4354-90d0-b2ff007c57c7/transcript

I'll tell you what I'm gonna be watching with some interest in the next few weeks -  that employment bill that ACT has just introduced to Parliament that would make it a lot easier for employers to fire staff who earn more than $180,000 because those high earning staff would not be able to take personal grievance cases for justified dismissal.

Now, I say high earning with air quotes, because while yes, these people do earn a lot more than the average wage, I don't think that they earn so much that they can be considered, I don't know, rich pricks and treated so callously as to simply fire them without them having any recourse.

Many of these people, I think, will probably be raising families - because you don't earn $180,000 plus if you're in your early 20s, do you?

These are people who are in management, maybe even in upper management, and I'd imagine that they've got families to feed and families to look after, so I imagine these people would be amongst the most stressed if they could just lose their jobs all of a sudden.

I think ACT is taking something of a political gamble here, because I would have thought that this is a case of ACT screwing over some of its own voters.

Because remember, ACT does well in well-heeled places like Epsom, which is where people earning more than $180,000 a year live.

Now, I'm not sure what's made ACT feel like they have to do this, because it's not as if there has been this huge public debate about how people on $180,000 plus have been terrible employees who need to have their employment rights stripped.

And if anything, this is just going to provide work for lawyers because people on this kind of money will have the means, and if they have families to feed, the motivation as well, to litigate, and I suspect that they will.

So I'm very keen to see if ACT actually goes through with this part of its plan, because from where I'm sitting, this just looks like a really weird idea with more downsides than upsides.

LISTEN ABOVE

I'll tell you what I'm gonna be watching with some interest in the next few weeks -&nbsp; that employment bill that ACT has just introduced to Parliament that would make it a lot easier for employers to fire staff who earn more than $180,000 because those high earning staff would not be able to take personal grievance cases for justified dismissal.
Now, I say high earning with air quotes, because while yes, these people do earn a lot more than the average wage, I don't think that they earn so much that they can be considered, I don't know, rich pricks and treated so callously as to simply fire them without them having any recourse.
Many of these people, I think, will probably be raising families - because you don't earn $180,000 plus if you're in your early 20s, do you?
These are people who are in management, maybe even in upper management, and I'd imagine that they've got families to feed and families to look after, so I imagine these people would be amongst the most stressed if they could just lose their jobs all of a sudden.
I think ACT is taking something of a political gamble here, because I would have thought that this is a case of ACT screwing over some of its own voters.
Because remember, ACT does well in well-heeled places like Epsom, which is where people earning more than $180,000 a year live.
Now, I'm not sure what's made ACT feel like they have to do this, because it's not as if there has been this huge public debate about how people on $180,000 plus have been terrible employees who need to have their employment rights stripped.
And if anything, this is just going to provide work for lawyers because people on this kind of money will have the means, and if they have families to feed, the motivation as well, to litigate, and I suspect that they will.
So I'm very keen to see if ACT actually goes through with this part of its plan, because from where I'm sitting, this just looks like a really weird idea with more downsides than upsides.
LISTEN ABOVE

Perspective with Heather du Plessis-Allan: I don't agree with ACT's new employment bill

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/1b0c8cc7-6653-47af-a50a-b2ff00768625/transcript

Gavin Grey: UK Correspondent on Benjamin Netanyahu's comments about Kier Starmer, the prison's trialling chemical castration, Denmark's rising retirement age

In 1 playlist(s)

Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips