RNZ showcases why nobody trusts mainstream media

A brief post to set the record straight.

Today RNZ is running an article entitled, Do you know what people on benefits actually get?

If you don't, you won't find out from the article, which is mostly a testimony to the evils of inequality and supporting quotes from the Helen Clark Foundation and economist Shamubeel Eaqub.

There is just one sentence that contains anything resembling an answer to the headline question:

"He said [Shamubeel Eaqub] the fact that the JobSeeker basic benefit is $361 a week for single people over 25 without children, compared to $538 a week for people on NZ Super might surprise some people."

He chose the lowest benefit.

The Ministry of Social Development now reports annually on what people on benefits receive. They call their report, Total Incomes Annual Report which reflects that the 'basic benefit' is just one part of the total income.

I am not going to pass comment on the adequacy, or otherwise, of the incomes. But I am going to provide what they are.

If you are unable to read the following graph, go to the report, page 9.

There was nothing to prevent the RNZ reporter, Susan Edmunds from reproducing the same chart in order to best answer the question she posed. Or Shamubeel Eaqub drawing from it.

Yet again RNZ shows its total lack of balance.

Self-induced poverty

On the back of a reported 96 percent increase in methamphetamine use, NewstalkZB host Mike Hosking asked Labour MP Ginny Andersen, "Who takes meth?"

She replied:

"Typically, it's, if you want to generalise, it's poorer areas, rural New Zealand where there's already poverty. And I know of people who work in some of those areas and one of the things they see, teachers see, is that when a family has been on a meth binge there's no food in the house because they are going for 3 or 4 days without eating and they're not going to sleep and so you get children turning up to school that are hungry, who haven't had any sleep. So it's already hit by poverty, and that entrenches and makes it even harder for kids growing up in a home with poverty."

There are two issues. A reasonable listener would immediately ask what intervention is being made to protect those children if schools know what is going on? According to Oranga Tamariki, "Drug and alcohol abuse are frequently factors in the decisions to place a child in care.  Methamphetamine is the dominant drug in these decisions."1

An increase in children going into care would be expected then. However, fewer children have been going into care with the Salvation Army reporting, "a 40 percent reduction in the rate at which tamariki Māori end up in state care, from 14.7 per thousand children in 2018 down to 8.7 per thousand in 2024."2 Maori children make up the majority of those taken into the care of the state.

Maori also have the highest meth use compared to every other ethnicity.3

Unsurprisingly then, in Northland, where the Maori population is high (40 percent), wastewater testing shows the highest methamphetamine consumption at nearly 2000 milligrams per day per 1000 people.4 The average across all sites is around 1,400 mg.5

My first concern, the safety and wellbeing of children with meth-using parents, is not ameliorated in the least based on available Oranga Tamariki data. One can only hope other agencies like the Salvation Army, DHB Child Protection Services or Maori social service providers are getting involved.

Northland not only boasts the highest meth consumption but also the highest unemployment rate, highest welfare dependency rate, and highest sole parent rate. This is no mere coincidence. They are exacerbating factors.

Which brings us to the next issue – poverty.

Poverty isn’t a term that finds favour with older readers, but it wields enormous political power and influence when it comes to policymaking.

Police say: "Locations with high methamphetamine use per capita were largely regional North Island towns also experiencing high rates of socioeconomic deprivation."6

They put New Zealand's annual meth consumption at 1,434 kg worth $538 million indicating the price is $375 per gm (which sounds about right given reporting says both supply and demand are up, and a parliamentary resource7 put the price at $500 in 2018/19). A gram would yield ten 'doses' or 'points'. Whichever way you cut it, meth is not a cheap habit.

If a household is bingeing during the week – as per Ginny Andersen’s comment - it isn’t employed. That means the taxpayer is footing the meth bill via benefits (possibly topped up by dealing.)

We are literally paying for people to put poison in their bodies to later piss down the toilet as evidence of how much they are spending – correction, we are spending.

The hand wringers say poverty drives people to meth use. That’s about face. The poverty is a result of meth use.

Then comes the inevitable need for more cash handouts (eg Jacinda Ardern’s Best Start payment) to support the blameless children.

But you never hand money to an addict. Surely. Unless you are MSD.

It is a crazy state of affairs. The state is using massive resources to stamp out the supply of P while simultaneously funding a large part of the demand.

And the poor meal-ticket kids who get caught up in the mess only ensure the next generation of users.

I clearly recall Richard Prebble talking to an ACT conference in 2003 about the growing meth problem. That is a generation ago.

Parts of this country are in a hopeless bind, have been for decades and there is no light on the horizon. A significant part of the poverty we hear about day in and day out is self-induced. But it will never be described that way by politicians like Ginny Andersen who could, by the way, be back running the country come 2026.

 

1/ https://www.orangatamariki.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/About-us/Research/Latest-research/Methamphetamine-and-care/Methamphetamine-and-Care.pdf

2/ https://www.salvationarmy.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/TSA_SOTN25_DownloadVersion.pdf?utm_source=web&utm_medium=button&utm_campaign=SOTNfullreport

3/ https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/library-research-papers/research-papers/methamphetamine-in-new-zealand-a-snapshot-of-recent-trends/

4/ https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/536617/northland-has-the-highest-amount-of-methamphetamine-consumption-in-the-country 

5/ https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/wastewater-2024-annual-overview.pdf

6/ https://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/publication/national-drugs-wastewater-testing-programme-2024-annual-overview

7/ https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/library-research-papers/research-papers/methamphetamine-in-new-zealand-a-snapshot-of-recent-trends/

If Luxon stays, the country blunders on

Of late there have been countless headlines stating Prime Minister Christopher Luxon 'must go' followed by reasons why. These include - in no particular order - his poor party polling, his poor personal polling, inability to articulate clearly what he stands for, overuse of corporate speech, running the country like a business and more.

For a member of the public who stands outside the beltway, outside of the political skullduggery and shenanigans in Wellington, it looks suspiciously engineered. Get the jungle drums beating and the sound will only intensify, especially with the combined enabling might of the media, unions and activist-left.

I don't like or dislike the PM. He seems capable when he is wheeling and dealing internationally, he's a very successful person in his own right and looks like a loyal, dependable family man.

But there is one reason why I believe he absolutely will have to go and that's his position on the Treaty Principles Bill. Here he is in parliament in November last year:

"...it is Government policy to support this bill to first reading. It is also Government policy to give parties a free vote at the second reading. The National Party, which I lead, will not be supporting it. The only way this bill will become law is if the Opposition parties do support it." [My emphasis]

To his credit he has not wavered. And it's a mark of his leadership that his Ministers and MPs also toe the line (though often rather robotically.)

But his truculence is not matched by the people who voted for him or one of the other coalition parties.

Yes, we all understand that some Maori feel beleaguered by existing as a minority. They anguish and appeal about the 'tyranny of the majority'. But Maori are only one minority in New Zealand. It is impossible to satisfy every minority which is why we have a democracy that vests rights and responsibilities in the individual.

In practical terms then, the country cannot be co-governed by one race on one side and every other race on the other. That is patently unjust, illogical and a recipe for never-ending dispute. Luxon says he opposes co-governance but while the derived Treaty principle of 'partnership' remains, the courts and councils can interpret it as such.

We cannot solve past wrongs by committing future wrongs. We have to commit together to a robust democracy that will abide. We have to agree as best we can what role the Treaty plays going forward. That's what this bill gives ALL New Zealanders a chance to do.

BUT the Prime Minister is standing in the way. Even though surveys show most people support a referendum to decide what the Treaty means for everyone who lives here, Chris Luxon is prepared to deny their wishes.

It is untenable for him to change his mind after months of steadfastly defending his opposition, though even he must concede in the deep recesses that unresolved, the issue will only come back again and again.

So he must go. His party must put New Zealand's future and democratic foundations first.

If Luxon stays, the country blunders on.

'Free' school lunches: Why?

This week, headline after headline bitched about the new 'free' school lunch programme. Principals apparently compared the meals to 'dog food'. There were numerous teething problems with delivery. KidsCan jumped on the bandwagon to promote child poverty and useless government yet again.

It beggars belief really. Parents are already paid cash every week to help them take care of their children. Family Tax Credits are for low-income or beneficiary families tapering off as a parent's income increases. Before I lay those out, here's a cost breakdown of a lunch I would make and eat myself (maybe omitting the biscuits): a couple of ham and cheese Molenberg sandwiches, a couple of Tim Tams and an apple. Throw in a Just Juice and the weekly cost, purchased from Pak'nSave, for two children, would be $57.31.

Broken down:

Obviously, a couple of vegemite sandwiches and plain biscuits would cost a lot less.

Anyway, here's what a low-income family with two children receives weekly to spend on their children's needs:

School lunches are already well-catered for with $261.86 cash assistance.

Parents are double-dipping.

The complicit schools cry "hungry children can't learn" forcing the state to step in and giving lazy parents ample opportunity to renege on their own obligation.

If the parent refuses to provide the lunch that the government has already paid for then the cost should be deducted from their family tax credits.

If parents are allowed to assume less and less responsibility for their children, no good will come of it. The balance gets ever more tipped towards all rights and no responsibilities. As a society we need to be heading in the other direction.

When Family Tax Credits were introduced, National and ACT opposed them. In government, they accepted them. When free school lunches were suggested National and ACT opposed. Now a decade later, National and ACT accept them.

Look how far we have traveled in a short space of time.

While school lunches may seem small-beer to some, they are a marker of a society steadily moving away from personal responsibility. And that's not trivial.

Absolute number on benefits at all-time high

Benefit numbers always rise in December driven mainly by the influx of students into the system.

Taking the seasonal rise into account, and comparing apples with apples, December 2024 nevertheless saw numbers exceed 409,000 - the highest absolute number ever.

There has never been this many individuals on a main benefit in New Zealand before.

Even in the 1990s the total never reached 400,000.

Of course, when population is accounted for, the picture changes. Nevertheless, 12.6 percent  of the working-age population dependent on a benefit is higher than at any time since the Global Financial Crisis.

12.6% represents one in eight people who rely on an unemployment, sole parent or some form of carer or disability benefit.

There are 232,000 children supported in these families. If their experience isn't short-lived, they will learn habitual dependence from their parents.

Little media attention is paid to the problem of benefit dependence - not since ACT MP Muriel Newman doggedly highlighted this problem during the 1990s/2000s.

The latest December number was released yesterday. Despite being the highest absolute number ever, the media has either ignored the development or is ignorant of it.

This deep dependence is a massive problem because it fuels so many other social ills.

But New Zealand's longstanding love affair with social security (at its inception a benign and worthy institution) prevents a dispassionate assessment of its evolution.

Once driven and sustained by people with common values, it is now too frequently abused by people whose values are an anathema to a shrinking majority. That is the unfortunate trajectory of welfare states over time - they become too much of a good thing.

The genuinely needy probably form no fewer than the 2-3% that relied on benefits between the late 1930s and early 1970s.

But today New Zealand is carrying hundreds of thousands of people who are quite capable of carrying themselves. And would if such an easy alternative wasn't presented.

Minister for Social Development Louise Upston put out a release yesterday highlighting the traffic light system that National has introduced and reiterating their underwhelming goal:

    "These changes will help achieve our target of 50,000 fewer people on Jobseeker Support by 2030."

What about sole parents and their children? What about people who can't access the health treatments and operations that would enable them to return to work? What about those who cause their own incapacity through drug and alcohol addiction?

The numbers on all main benefits are growing - not just unemployment.

Perhaps after forty plus years of over-reliance on welfare the phenomena is now just part and parcel of Kiwi culture. You could be forgiven for thinking so.

Academics crying wolf

Yesterday the NZ Herald produced a headline that read, “Nine in 10 Kiwi kids endure trauma by age 8 - new research.” This was subsequent to an Auckland University press release titled, “Childhood trauma the norm, but positive experiences help” which began,

“Almost all children in Aotearoa, New Zealand (87 percent) have experienced significant trauma by the time they are eight, far more than earlier thought, according to new research.”

Trauma is what I expect refugee children from war-torn countries to have experienced. Turns out though trauma can now include a child answering ‘yes’ when asked, "Do other children put you down, call you names, or tease you in a mean way?"

The researchers (funded by the taxpayer via an MSD grant) used the longitudinal Growing Up in New Zealand cohort and assessed experience of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) by age eight. Some of the experiences are serious, for example, having a parent sent to prison, but others are just part and parcel of being a child. Being shouted at by Mum for being naughty or having a Mum who believes she’s been treated unfairly because of her ethnicity.

To describe the latter two as experiencing trauma destroys the word’s meaning.

NewstalkZB host Tim Beveridge interviewed the lead researcher and was justifiably skeptical. He later observed that academics risk losing the public when they over-dramatise their press releases; that the public may switch off at that point and miss any important findings which may follow.

What bothers me even more is the bastardization of a rich language abundantly capable of intricate and nuanced description. It has happened with many words beyond trauma. For instance, words like ‘assault’ and ‘violate’ get regularly employed in totally overblown and inappropriate ways. Guilty parties risk being accused of ‘crying wolf’ – a timeless adage that describes how repeated exaggeration will only result in them being ignored or worse, laughed at.

When it comes to children, New Zealand has enough real problems without manufactured crises.

 Money spent on more of this melodrama is money misdirected.

Bad leaders solicit bad advice

 

When Jacinda Ardern became Prime Minister, she was determined to increase income for children in welfare-dependent families - her magic bullet for solving child poverty. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group, led by Cindy Kiro, was convened to make the desired recommendations. A number of evidence briefs were provided to the group, one concerned the "likely effect of increasing the adequacy of welfare benefits on life course outcomes for children."

To prepare the Rapid Evidence Review, MSD analysts conducted an international literature search and came up with the following:

‘[Blair & Raver (2016)] concluded that in “supporting children’s physiologic reactivity, cognitive control, and self-regulation through parenting- and classroom-based interventions, prevention scientists, policy makers, and practitioners are essentially working hard to alleviate the costs of poverty for human development. Yet it is equally imperative to work further upstream—to lower parents’ and children’s exposure to poverty and associated stressors in the first place.” They suggested two avenues of policy development - supporting families to build higher levels of human capital so as to increase earnings, and to increase income and non-income transfers to families so that they are less likely to be poor.’

Ever-cynical I had a look at the Blair & Raver paper. The quote is accurate but incomplete. Blair & Raver’s concluding sentence is omitted. It reads:

"Two avenues of policy innovation include supporting families in building higher levels of human capital so as to increase earnings and increasing federal and state income and non-income transfers (such as the Earned Income Tax Credit or Section 8 housing subsidies) to families so that they are less likely to be poor."

Do you see what the MSD policy wonks have done? There is a world of difference between a welfare benefit and an Earned Income Tax Credit, so the 'suggestion' was manipulated. They could have left the quote complete and allowed the reader to mentally substitute the In Work Tax Credit. But the IWTC isn't a welfare benefit either.

To be fair, the following finding from Heckman & Mosso (2014) was included in the brief:

"There is little support for the claim that untargeted income transfer policies to poor families significantly boost child outcomes. Mentoring, parenting, and attachment are essential features of successful families and interventions that shape skills at all stages of childhood."

But this was described as being in "sharp contrast" to the "more nuanced conclusion" of Blair & Raver. The conclusion they manipulated.

Unsurprisingly the preordained policy preference was conveniently supported by the evidence brief, and benefit payment rates began their inexorable rise. By March 2024 a sole parent with two or more children was receiving a total average income of $1,107 per week.

But what did the brief omit that might have cautioned against increasing benefits? Only actual New Zealand research.

Commissioned by MSD in 2002, Susan E. Mayer of the University of Chicago wrote an 80-page report, The Influence of Parental Income on Children’s Outcomes, and concluded:

"Research on the source of income consistently shows that welfare income is negatively associated with children’s outcomes. Most (but not all) studies also show that even after controlling for total family income, welfare receipt is still negatively associated with children’s outcomes. This is true for research in New Zealand, Canada and the US. It implies that, although the additional income from welfare may improve children’s outcomes, either parental characteristics associated with welfare receipt or behavioural changes due to welfare receipt hurt children’s outcomes."

Mayer's report is listed in the evidence brief bibliography but never quoted from.

Other highly relevant NZ research derived from Statistics New Zealand’s Household Economic Survey (HES) and the Ministry of Social Policy’s 2000 Survey of Living Standards, Children in poor families: does the source of family income change the picture? was completely overlooked:

"To summarise, the findings show that poor children reliant on government transfers, when compared with poor children reliant on market incomes, have lower living standards and a number of compounding shortfalls that can be expected to place them at greater risk of negative outcomes. The findings suggest a need for policies that have a wider focus than just income support. Such an expanded policy focus would incorporate recognition of the multiple sources of disadvantage of many of these children, and would explore mechanisms designed to connect parents and children to services directed at reducing the likelihood of negative child outcomes."

So more than just a shortage of money is negatively affecting children in benefit-dependent homes. If poor children in working households have better outcomes, then increasing parental employment would be a better strategy than increasing benefits.

I occasionally wonder if Ardern, who claimed to have studied child poverty for six years, read the wealth of material produced by MSD during the late nineties and early 2000s. Had she done so she may have reached the same conclusion as her Labour predecessor, Prime Minister Helen Clark, that work was the best way out of poverty, for parents and their children.

Oddly, the Welfare Expert Advisory Group never asked for advice about whether "increasing the adequacy of welfare benefits" would lead to more children relying on them.

It did. In the six years to September 2024 the number of children dependent on a benefit grew by more than 50,000.

And there's also more violence against children, more school absenteeism, lower childhood immunisation (heaven help the poorest communities if there is a measles outbreak), and lower pre-school attendance ... all mere correlations of course.

Sources

https://www.academicpedsjnl.net/article/S1876-2859(16)00026-7/fulltext

https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-040753

https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj18/children-in-poor-families18-pages118-147.html

https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/influence-parental-income/influence-of-parental-income.pdf

https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/benefit-system/total-incomes-annual-report-2024.pdf

https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/benefit/index.html

Remembering Tariana Turia

Dame Tariana Turia has been well-remembered by many over the past few days. She was warm, had a great sense of humour, and was, above all, highly principled. People I trust have said so and I believe them. Having never met her, however, I knew her only by the thoughts she publicly expressed.

On not infrequent occasions Tariana outraged the public. The word 'holocaust', in relation to the Maori experience of colonisation, was first used by Turia in 2000 as a Labour MP. Later, in 2008, as Maori Party co-leader, she likened the banning of gang patches in Wanganui to the treatment of Jews during the second world war. Both comparisons provoked an outcry.

She was what Elizabeth Rata would describe as an ethno-nationalist and bitterly complained that Maori are the only ethnicity in New Zealand that cannot grow their share of the population through immigration (ignoring that 100,000 plus Maori choose to live elsewhere and not return.) Her strong desire to grow the Maori population was evident in a speech made to the First Maori Sexual and Reproductive Health Conference in November 2004:

"I am intolerant of the excessive focus on controlling our fertility. When I used to sit around the Cabinet table with [Labour]colleagues, one of the many hot topics I got into strife about was discussion around the 'problem' of teenage pregnancy. My objection was to the problemmatization of conception. So when Cabinet Ministers sat around tut-tutting the fact that the fertility rate for Maori females aged 13-17 years was 26.2 per 1000, more than five times that of non-Maori, (4.9% per 1000), I objected to their analysis of our fertility as a problem."

Then education Minister Trevor Mallard reacted by calling this irresponsible: "We must do all we can to educate our kids to avoid early pregnancy - whether through abstinence or contraception. We need to give them advice to minimise - not increase - teen birth rates. It is grossly irresponsible to argue otherwise."

Most Maori teenage births resulted in long-term welfare dependence, attendant poorer outcomes and heightened risks. But Turia would never acknowledge the growing body of evidence pointing to this. It is true that she and Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples would talk about welfare being bad for Maori but with an important caveat which Turia stressed to Scoop editor Gordon Campbell when campaigning in 2008: "We’re talking Maori unemployed. We’re not talking about Maori women on benefits." Sharples reiterated that saying, "... we have a culture of accepting solo parents, [and] we have to take care of them".

By implication, neither associated over-dependence on welfare with Maori children's poor health and educational outcomes or heightened risk of abuse and neglect.

She also took a position which would see her out of step with the current government: "I am totally opposed to children being raised outside whakapapa links.” For her, children should always remain with whanau. Regarding the uplift of Maori children by Oranga Tamiriki she told Ryan Bridge, then on Magic Talk radio, in 2019:

"In the last few years since 1993, we have had 83 non-Māori children killed, we have had 17 Māori children die, so the fact of it is this is an overkill when it comes to Māori families. Now if you don't want to call it racism, you can call it what you like."

Statistics from the Family Violence Death Review Committee show in the 14 years between 2002 and 2015, fifty-one child deaths were Maori. Turia seemed unable to deal with facts.

She was very firmly in the camp that continues today to blame Maori social problems on colonisation and what she frequently called ongoing "economic violence" against her people. "Cultural disconnection and dislocation" were blamed for acts of violence, even against children.

By all accounts Tariana Turia's personal attributes were manifold. But it doesn't follow that finding favour with her ideas is compulsory.

Sources

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/make-work-for-dole-mandatory-to-break-habit-says-sharples/OC4L47G63MUFRC23AUX2JM7ZYA/?c_id=1&objectid=10421177

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/mp-likens-patch-ban-to-wwii-targeting-of-jews/ZK4QGXEAC4QGQPWZJOFMK3DK7A/

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/turias-comments-irresponsible

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/turia-whanau-best-to-deal-with-child-abuse/RQPXIHE46UFXQS6FKXOJQAIHXM/?c_id=146&objectid=158779

What does society expect from fathers?

We live in a society utterly confused about parenthood and the role of fathers.

The last Labour government made fathers increasingly irrelevant. 

In 2020 a law change repealing section 70a of the Social Security Act meant mothers applying for a sole parent benefit no longer had to name the father of their child for the purposes of collecting child support from him.

Men became decreasingly responsible for children they fathered.

Former Social Development Minister Paula Bennett told RNZ at the time: "These are women who are choosing not to name the father, that means he doesn't have financial obligations to the state, to actually be paying child support, so it's actually quite a big thing to be dropping that." For context there are over 100,000 sole parents currently collecting a benefit.

If a father is no longer legally required to financially provide for his child it is difficult to justify attendant obligations.

Yet a court report in today's NZ Herald explaining why a judge commuted the sentence of a sole mother convicted of killing her 4 week-old baby, says:

The Court of Appeal allowed a starting point of five and a half years’ imprisonment, nine months shorter than was determined by the High Court. The appellate justices then allowed further discounts for her youth, prospects for rehabilitation and “to reflect that tragic background which resulted in her being inadequately prepared for motherhood”. The discounts should also reflect that she was “effectively abandoned” by the children’s fathers, the justices said.

“We pause here to emphasise the need to condemn what appears, at least on the evidence before us, to have been the failure of both fathers to perform their obligations as parents,” the appellate panel said as an aside. “[The deceased child’s] father had some involvement but seems to have taken no steps to respond to the appellant’s clear signals that she was not coping and that she feared what she might do.

What "obligations as parents"? There are none that, if neglected, are punishable by law.

Sixty years ago the courts fined - and occasionally imprisoned - men who failed to provide maintenance. Harsh but clear.

Today we stumble about vainly trying to reconcile a plethora of human rights and fail miserably.

Of course it is mainly female rights that are catered to. Fertility rights, custody rights, benefit rights ... the enforcement of which can and do culminate in an abysmal failure to uphold children's rights (which exist under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.)

In this case, an older brother had suffered a "non-fatal assault" earlier but the youngest was killed.  Not even the most basic right to "life, survival and development" was upheld.

The court concluded:

“The appellant is the only parent held accountable for the manslaughter and assaults ... yet there were two other adults who must be considered as sharing some responsibility.”

Do they or don't they? The messages young men receive are badly mixed. On one hand the state says they can impregnate at will and bear no responsibility. On the other, an Appeal Court judge, mopping up after the too-common horrible aftermath, claims there is responsibility. But it's not one enforceable by law.

Legality and morality are not hand-in-glove.

The basis of social security law is now amoral. The failure to hold fathers financially accountable is just one of the many perversions of its original strongly moral basis. What did Michael Joseph Savage call social security? Applied Christianity.

I don't know what he would call it today.