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

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

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I tell you what I'm going to be watching with
some interest in the next few weeks. It's that employment
bill that actors just introduced to Parliament that would make
it a lot easier for employers to fire staff who
earn more than one hundred and eighty thousand dollars because
those quote high earning staff would not be able to
take personal grievance cases for unjustified dismissal. Now I say

(00:20):
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 one hundred and eighty thousand dollars

(00:41):
plus if you're in your early twenties, 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 a
lot of them 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 actors taking something of a political gamble here,
because I would have thought that this is a case

(01:02):
of ACT screwing over some of its own voters, because
remember ACT does well in well healed places like EPSOM,
which is where people earning more than one hundred and
eighty thousand dollars 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 one hundred and eighty
thousand dollars plus have been terrible employees who need to

(01:23):
have their employment right 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.

(01:46):
For more from Heather Duplicy, Allan Drive listen live to
news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio