The pay equity bill has been introduced as part of the 125th celebrations of women getting the vote but getting the vote will be easier than dealing with this bill.

The bill is an orange compared to apples. It’s a bill that’s a square peg looking for a round hole.

The current pay equity version began with the rest home workers deal. It was off to court until it got negotiated out by the previous Government.

It took an industry that was largely frequented by women and it was argued, poorly paid because they were women.

That's not the same as an industry that’s largely frequented by women but the men in that industry are paid differently. That is what's often confused.

There are examples of female-dominated industries with plenty of men but in which the women tend to get paid less than men overall.

That in itself is a complicated matter but has nothing to do with this bill.

Where this bill is complicated is, any industry that has a lot of women who are poorly paid has to then find some sort of comparable industry, where there are a lot of men who happen to get paid better and to then argue the case for a pay rise.

Now that is artificial. It’s a made up concept.

That’s apple and oranges. That’s square pegs and round holes.

Which is not, by the way, to deny the pay rise, it’s simply to suggest the mechanism being used is cumbersome.

The counter-argument is, of course, well if that’s a dumb idea what’s a good one. And that is the conundrum.

If you’re a purist, this is where you would probably say, “well the reality of the workplace is that some jobs are worth more than others”.

And some jobs are worth what they are worth based on what the supply and demand of labour is.

That’s why pilots get paid more than teachers.

It has nothing to do with gender, it’s about skills, training, and supply and demand.

Now in its purest form, aged care workers aren’t highly skilled. That’s why they’re not paid much.

The fact there are a lot of women doing the job, indicates not that they can’t do other things or they are only there because of a lack of skills, but rather they’re empathetic and it’s the sort of job they’re attracted to.

And if you are going to artificially inject something into the equation, the mechanism you use has to be a lot simpler than the one they’re suggesting, which to be simply is fraught.

Because when you’re artificially seeking greater financial input beyond what the market naturally can bare, it means someone needs to pay.

In the aged care workers case, it’s the resident of the home or their families. In other words, the cost of everything simply goes up.

So watch how this unfolds because it’s a mess in the making.

This is a classic case of legislation driven by altruism not reality.