The Fine Line Between Compassion and Fairness

One evening, my son and I talked about what makes a good society.

He said, full of idealism, “If everyone could share equally in what life offers. Then people would truly be happy.”

I smiled and asked him: “Imagine you are one of the top five students in your school. But the school decides to add everyone’s marks together, divide them equally, and give every student the same result. Would you be happy?”

He looked puzzled, then quickly replied, “Of course not!”

I smiled again. “So you have your answer. It’s not fair to take the reward of those who work hard to give to those who refuse to try.”

That short exchange captures a dilemma at the heart of modern welfare policy — how to balance compassion with incentive.

Australia is a remarkable country — prosperous, safe, and generous. Our government has built one of the most comprehensive social welfare systems in the world, designed to ensure that no one is left behind. Yet, as with all well-intentioned systems, generosity can create its own unintended consequences. It is time to ask an uncomfortable but necessary question: “Has compassion, in its noble pursuit of equality, begun to erode fairness, discipline, and productivity?”

What I See in Practice

Over the years advising hundreds of business owners, I have seen how this imbalance plays out every day. Many small business clients tell me the same story, and it always contains one word: cash.

Employers struggle to recruit staff because some workers insist on being paid cash — so they can continue collecting Centrelink benefits. If the employer refuses, they risk being short-staffed. In desperation, some agree. They pay wages “under the table” from their own taxed income. Because those wages are unrecorded, they cannot claim them as deductions. To offset the loss, they underreport revenue.

And so the cycle continues — welfare abuse on one side, tax leakage on the other. Both driven by a system that unintentionally rewards non-compliance.

The Moral Cost

We often talk about the financial cost of welfare, but the moral cost is even greater. When some pretend to be unemployed, sick, or disabled simply to receive benefits, they erode public trust. Those genuinely in need become the silent victims of scepticism and resentment. Meanwhile, business owners — who work long hours, pay taxes, and employ others — feel punished for their diligence. They carry the load for both the system and those who misuse it.

This is not fairness. It is imbalance disguised as equality.

Compassion With Accountability

In my view, a compassionate society should always protect the vulnerable — that’s what makes a country truly civilised. But I’ve also learned that compassion works best when it walks alongside responsibility. Without that balance, even good intentions can lead to dependence rather than progress.

I believe the goal of support should be to help people regain confidence and re-enter the workforce, not to keep them tied to assistance forever. A strong and fair economy grows when everyone contributes in their own way. Every Australian deserves the opportunity to thrive — and with that opportunity comes a shared duty to take part in building our nation’s future.

Conclusion

The mother-and-son story reminds us that fairness and generosity must walk together. A society prospers not when everyone enjoys the same outcome, but when everyone is given a fair chance to achieve it. Only then can compassion fulfil its true purpose — to lift people up, not to keep them still.

Author’s note:

I’ve seen how policies designed to protect can sometimes discourage effort. The true test of leadership lies not in how much a nation gives, but in how wisely it gives — in ways that uphold fairness, encourage work, and preserve integrity.