As the deadline to comment on the proposed Fair Pay Bill closes, debate is increasingly shifting from whether pay transparency is desirable to how the proposed changes may alter hiring and salary negotiations in practice.
The latest version of the draft Employment Equity Amendment Bill, 2026 – commonly referred to as the Fair Pay Bill – was published in Government Gazette No. 54594 on 30 April 2026. The deadline to comment is Friday, 29 May.
At its core, the Bill seeks to break what supporters describe as a cycle of inherited wage inequality: employers relying on a candidate’s previous salary to determine future pay.
But employment law specialists say the changes would do more than prohibit requests for payslips.
According to Imraan Mahomed, a director in the employment law practice at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr (CDH), and Lee Masuku, a senior associate at CDH, the updated Bill introduces three central reforms: a prohibition on salary history enquiries, mandatory pay transparency, and an explicit right for employees to discuss remuneration.
The updated version also introduces and refines several definitions that did not appear, or appeared differently, in earlier drafts. These include “current remuneration”, “past remuneration”, “remuneration information”, and “remuneration range”, while broadening the meaning of “enquiring” to include attempts to gather information directly or indirectly, either personally or through an agent.
CDH said the revised wording appears intended to reduce ambiguity and make the restrictions more difficult to circumvent in practice.
If enacted, employers would no longer be allowed to ask candidates about current or past remuneration, require remuneration records during recruitment, or use salary history to determine remuneration or employment conditions.
Instead, remuneration decisions would need to stand on their own.
The Bill does, however, create a limited exception. Once an offer of employment has already been made, an applicant may request in writing that their current or previous remuneration be taken into account.
From ‘market-related’ to disclosed salary ranges
The Bill also targets another long-standing feature of recruitment: vague salary disclosures.
The explanatory memorandum argues that terms such as “market-related” or “competitive” often leave employers with greater information advantages during salary negotiations and may contribute to continued underpayment, particularly among historically disadvantaged groups.
Under the proposed changes, employers would be required to determine remuneration – or remuneration ranges – during job classification, grading, or evaluation processes and disclose those figures when advertising or recruiting for positions, and before appointing, promoting, or transferring employees.
The updated draft also introduces a broader obligation requiring employers, on request, to provide employees with remuneration information for positions they currently occupy or positions they have applied for or wish to apply for – extending transparency beyond recruitment advertisements alone.
CDH notes that the revised wording goes further than earlier versions of the Bill by making remuneration determination a more direct obligation whenever classification processes are undertaken, while remaining subject to the equal pay provisions already contained in the Employment Equity Act.
The promise: less salary anchoring
Supporters of the Bill argue that the reforms are intended to create a fairer labour market by reducing what economists often describe as “salary anchoring” – where historical earnings continue shaping future income regardless of actual market value.
The explanatory memorandum argues that reliance on historical remuneration can entrench disparities created by past discrimination and reduce mobility for workers seeking better opportunities. It positions greater pay transparency as a mechanism to reduce information asymmetry and strengthen equal pay for work of equal value.
The Bill also seeks to amend section 3 of the Employment Equity Act so that it is interpreted in line with South Africa’s obligations under the International Labour Organisation’s Convention No. 100 concerning Equal Remuneration.
Another addition in the updated version is an explicit provision stating that past or current remuneration may not be used to justify income differentials or unfair discrimination – reinforcing the Bill’s link to existing employment equity principles.
But transparency may not eliminate trade-offs
Although the policy objective has attracted support, legal commentators suggest the practical effects may be more complex.
CDH notes that one unintended consequence could be upward wage pressure and reduced flexibility in remuneration negotiations. That could create challenges for employers that operate in sectors with wide salary bands, evolving job descriptions, or highly specialised skills.
Importantly, the Bill does not prohibit salary negotiations altogether. Employers would still be able to discuss remuneration expectations with candidates, provided those discussions are anchored to disclosed remuneration ranges rather than historical remuneration.
In earlier commentary on the Bill, CDH also highlighted operational questions around how employers assess value where historical benchmarks are limited and warned that smaller businesses may face affordability pressures linked to formal remuneration structures and disclosure requirements.
For employees, greater transparency may improve visibility and reduce dependence on historic earnings. At the same time, questions remain about how greater reliance on predetermined remuneration ranges may influence salary negotiations in practice – particularly in sectors where pay has historically been more flexible or individually negotiated.
The updated Bill still leaves room for negotiation within established remuneration ranges but changes the starting point from previous earnings to employer-defined value.
Confidential salary clauses may also come under pressure
Another less-discussed implication is workplace transparency.
The Bill would expressly allow employees to discuss offers of employment, remuneration, and remuneration ranges with one another, placing greater pressure on salary confidentiality practices that discourage pay disclosure.
Although South African labour law already contains protections in this area, the proposed changes would make remuneration transparency a more explicit feature of workplace practice.
CDH also notes a technical amendment to section 9 of the Employment Equity Act. The proposed wording would expressly extend protections in sections 6, 6A, 7, and 8 to job applicants, while section 6B – dealing with salary history restrictions – is drafted separately and refers directly to applicants in recruitment processes.
