OPINION
Did the Labour Party really campaign on destroying the
family, marginalising fathers, trivialising winning, and crushing
ambition?
Anti-family zealots
Recent claims by the Minister of Social Welfare that
“I know of no social science that says a nuclear family is more
successful than other kinds” flies in the face of a plethora of
evidence. That evidence includes two research papers published last year
by the government’s own social policy agency, which conclude that sole
parenthood is a risk factor for children.
While many sole parents undoubtedly do a wonderful job
of raising their children under difficult circumstances, on the balance
of probability such families face greater challenges than two parent
families.
Back in 1987, Professor David Fergusson of the
Christchurch School of Medicine — founder of the Christchurch
Development Study which has followed a cohort of 1265 children since
1977 — warned policy makers “to be cautious about accepting enthusiastic
claims about the desirability of alternative family structure until the
validity or otherwise of these structures has been assessed on the basis
of carefully collected empirical evidence”. He went on to explain that
“the dismal statistics emerging from this longitudinal study tend to
suggest that this enthusiasm may have been premature or misplaced…While
the traditional nuclear family may have limitations as a child-rearing
institution, it is open to very serious debate as to whether the
alternative of short-term family structures which involve successive
transitions between single parent and two parent families will prove to
be as effective as a child-rearing institution”.
The study identified cohabitation as the foremost risk
factor for the breakdown of a child’s family: 44 percent of de-facto
couples separated within five years compared to 11 per cent of married
couples.
As early as 1977 — just after Labour had introduced
its incentive to break up the family, the domestic purposes benefit —
the Domestic Purposes Benefit Review Committee warned that “illegitimate
children who were neither adopted nor legitimised were more likely to
appear before a court for misconduct and … because of parental
inadequacy … are vastly over-represented in the population of state
wards”.
In its post-election briefing papers in 1996, the
Department of Social Welfare acknowledged that risk factors in
children’s development had been at statistically high levels for two
decades, with unemployment, benefit dependence, and instability in
family structure being identified as key. Sole parenthood has been
recognised as the strongest predictor of infant mortality, childhood
injury and hospitalisation. Children from backgrounds of family
disruption are the major victims of physical, emotional and sexual child
abuse, as well as neglect, their school performance is often poor, and
they are more than twice as likely to be expelled or suspended.
A 1999 study of some 500 youth files held by the
Christchurch Police showed that by far the majority of offences were
committed by youngsters who lived in disrupted homes without adequate
supervision, effective discipline or emotional support. New Zealand’s
unacceptably high rates of youth suicide and teenage pregnancy have also
been associated with family instability.
In comparison, marriage brings stability, order and
security into people’s lives. With two parents to love, guide and
supervise them, children are less likely to drop out of school, get
involved in substance abuse, fall pregnant, contemplate suicide, or
become involved in crime. They are also protected against poverty since
two parents sharing incomes, costs and resources are usually better off
than single parents.
Marriage plays a vital role in engaging men in
fatherhood, connecting them with their children, and encouraging them to
take a hands-on role in socialising their sons. With a growing amount of
local research showing just how important it is for boys to have a
strong relationship with their father, the Government’s anti-family
agenda — which by its very nature attacks, undermines and discourages
fatherhood — is now striking a blow at the very heart of our society.
New Zealand has always been a nation of strong
achievers, a ‘can-do’ country where people are not afraid to have a go.
As a result of that go-getting pioneering spirit, we now have a stunning
record of world-class accomplishments in the arts, science, business,
sport and many other walks of life.
But things are now changing. Our society is being
dominated by a politically correct culture of ‘inclusiveness’ and
‘participation’, where winning is regarded almost as evil and success as
greed. We appear to have been ambushed by a group of women rulers whose
obsession with their radical feminist ideology is threatening the very
nature of our once proud society.
Under their influence, men are treated as superfluous
and marginalised. As a result, we may as well kiss goodbye to future
iconic achievements — like our performance in the Rugby World Cup and
the America’s Cup, winning will be relegated to New Zealand’s
wastebasket of history.
I don’t believe New Zealanders voted for this
government’s damaging agenda and I certainly don’t recall the Labour
Party campaigning on destroying the family, marginalising fathers,
trivialising winning, or crushing ambition. Nor do I think it’s a path
that Kiwi voters really want to go down.
Dr Muriel Newman, MP – The Column
9 December 2003
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0312/S00136.htm
home
|