iSAYSO
PAY EQUITY — FOLLOW THE MONEY BEFORE USING THE LABELS
PAY EQUITY — FOLLOW THE MONEY BEFORE USING THE LABELS
Calling pay equity “communism” does not actually answer the financial question.
Pay equity does not mean paying everybody the same wage regardless of the job. Under the Equal Pay Act framework, the exercise is to determine whether work predominantly performed by women has been systemically undervalued because of sex, including by comparing skills, responsibilities, experience and working conditions with suitable comparator work.
The real issue is the money and the legal liabilities.
Treasury papers show that pay-equity settlements had already become a very substantial Crown fiscal exposure. A 2024 Cabinet paper recorded the cost of settlements to date at about $6.2 billion over the forecast period, while the Government later said existing settlements were costing about $1.78 billion per year.
In May 2025 the law was changed under urgency. Existing unsettled or undetermined pay-equity claims were discontinued, and review clauses in existing settlements became unenforceable. Those facts matter because outstanding claims represented potential legal and fiscal liabilities to the Crown.
Labour has now said that, if elected, it intends to reverse those changes within its first 100 days and put care and support workers first in line for a settlement.
So rather than arguing simply “communism versus equality,” the public is entitled to a proper accounting:
Where was the money originally appropriated?
Which pay-equity liabilities were recognised?
Which liabilities disappeared or were reduced when the 2025 legislation changed?
Were funds subsequently reallocated, transferred or reprioritised?
From which appropriations to which appropriations?
What court or Employment Relations Authority proceedings were affected?
What contingent liabilities were recorded before and after the amendments?
And if Labour reverses the law again, what will the actual fiscal liability be—not the campaign slogan, but the audited number?
Moving public money between appropriations or changing the accounting treatment of a liability is not automatically money laundering. Money laundering has a specific criminal meaning and requires a connection with proceeds of offending.
But large movements of public money absolutely justify scrutiny.
Show the appropriation. Show the transfer. Show the liability. Show the court claims. Show the Cabinet authority. Show the audit trail.
That is how taxpayers determine whether this is genuinely a pay-equity policy, a fiscal reallocation, the settlement of legal liabilities, or something else entirely.
