Review of Population and Social Policy, No. 9, 2000, 171–194

Family Relationships in Australia:
The Conservative-Liberal-Radical DebatePeter MCDONALD*

Abstract
There have been considerable changes in the family in Australia in thepast 30 years. These changes are examined within a political framework of a social
debate between conservatives, liberals and radicals. It is argued that, in general,
Australia has taken the liberal viewpoint through which greater autonomy is provided
to individuals to determine their own individual and intimate lives. In some instances,
the state has provided financial and legislative support for this process. There has
been growth in cohabiting unions, divorce, delayed marriage and childbearing, loneparent families, increased childlessness, and higher percentages of children born
outside of marriage. These can all be seen as social experiments that the society has
been prepared to tolerate as people seek their own solutions between theirconflicting needs for autonomy, intimacy and social and economic participation.

1. On Definitions
For official statistical purposes, a family in Australia is defined as two or more
persons, one of whom is at least 15 years of age, who are related by blood,
marriage (registered or de facto), adoption, step, or fostering, and who areusually residing in the same household (McEwin 1998, 16).
In everyday language, we use the word “family” in ways that are notconsistent with this statistical definition. The most obvious way that our everyday
concept of the family differs from the statistical definition is that almost all of us
frequently refer to people living in other households as members of our family. If
we are adult, our siblings, our parents, our grandparents, and our children would
often be described as “family” even though they live elsewhere. If we are a child,then we are likely to see our grandparents, our parent or sibling who lives
elsewhere, and even our cousins and aunts and uncles as family. In some uses of
the word, we refer to our in-laws as “family” but at other times they will be “yourfamily.” On more ceremonial occasions, such as weddings and funerals, family
might be used in a much broader sense to include cousins, uncles, and aunts.
The widespread interest in genealogy has extended the concept of family inother directions, most notably, to an ancestor and his or her descendants. The
This is the revised version of a paper presented to the Fourth Welfare Policy Seminar, Families in the
New Century, National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, Tokyo, March 14, 2000.
* Demography Program, Australian National University.

[ 171 ]

172

Peter MCDONALD

people we consider as family in everyday terms vary according to the purpose
and to our life cycle stage. Co-residence is just one of several criteria we may
employ in making use of the word “family.” Other criteria include our personal
circumstances, cultural norms, the nature of the relationship that we have withrelated persons (closeness, sense of obligation, etc.), and the context.
On the other hand, we might not use the word “family” to describe situations
that are considered a family in the official statistical definition. Two sisters
sharing a household might not describe themselves as “a family.” Even a couple
with no children might not in conversation refer to their household unit as “myfamily.” In popular parlance, there is a sense in which “family” is something
more than two people of the one generation in the one household.
The statistical definition is limited because it requires co-residence. It is also
limited because it is static whereas “family” is dynamic. The people we consider
as members of our family change as our circumstances change. We arecontinually adding and subtracting people to the conception of family that we
use for different purposes as we move through life. Family type in the statisticaldefinition is a structural type. We live in one-parent families, two-parent families,
couple families, or “other” families. More precisely, these are forms of living
arrangement rather than forms of “family.” For example, most children who live
in a one-parent family have another parent living elsewhere whom they would
describe as part of their family. Thus, it seems more appropriate to describe“family” in terms of the changing nature of relationships between people that canbe considered to be “family” relationships. This implies a more functional
approach to the consideration of families in contrast to the structural approach
used in the statistical definition.

2. On Theories
My approach to the family has been classified by sociologist Gilding (1997, 37, 254)
as neofunctionalist and liberal. As evidence, he quotes me as follows: “As societychanges, the lives of individuals and families will also change. The centrality of family
relationships, however, will remain because the family will always be the place inwhich most people find the care and intimacy that is part of their being” (McDonald
1995, 65). Gilding portrays the liberal, neofunctional approach in this way:
The liberal position is comfortable with the family as a social institution
which changes over time. It does not hark back to a glorious past, when life
was simpler and people kinder. Nor does it insist upon a narrow definitionof family. On the contrary, liberals acknowledge the enduring importance oflong-term relationships and children, and the changing meanings attachedFamily Relationships in Australia: The Conservative-Liberal-Radical Debate

173

to these relationships. The account is consistent with the fact that mostAustralians in the 1990s nominate the family as the most important aspect of
their lives. In close connection, Australians also define families in morediverse ways than was once the case. (1997, 254)
Gilding describes two other theoretical perspectives, the conservative and theradical. The conservative view is reflected in the following quotation:
It is simply false to argue that there is no relatively fixed definition of“family.” The human record, honestly confronted, shows that the family is anatural, universal, and irreplaceable community rooted in human nature.
The “family” in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be defined as a
man and a woman bonded together through a socially-approved covenantof marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, toprovide mutual care and protection, to create a small home economy, andto maintain loyalty and continuity between the generations, those going
before and those coming after. (Carlson 1996, 8)
Although not stated in this definition, the conservative approach also normallyspecifies rigid role segregation of husbands and wives, with husbands being
responsible for income earning and wives for the care of children and forhousehold maintenance (Bogle 1996). Conservatives see the family as being in astate of decline because, based on the statistical definition, a much smaller
percentage of people today live in the conservative form of family than was thecase at the beginning of the 1970s. In 1974, approximately 40% of Australians
lived in married couple families with dependent children where the husband wasin the labor force and the wife was not in the labor force. In 1998, the equivalent
figure was about 13% (derived from ABS 1976 and ABS 1998).
In the radical perspective, the family is not about intimacy and caring but about
power, oppression, abuse, and conflict. The family is seen as changing, but thechanges are very slow in regard to the establishment of equal and cooperative
forms of family relationships. The radical perspective sees the family as rooted inpatriarchy. This perspective does not regard change as necessarily heading in one
direction, but as chaotic, fragmentary, and uncertain. In the extreme, the radical
approach does not mourn the passing of “the family” (Stacey 1993).
In contrast to the United States and Britain, according to Gilding (1997, 254),
the liberal position achieved widespread influence in Australia in the 1980s,“marginalising the conservative position in terms of religious fanaticism and‘backward provincialism.’” The liberal position also generally held sway in theofficial pronouncements from the United Nations during the 1994 InternationalYear of the Family: “Families assume diverse forms and functions from one
country to another, and within each national society. These express the diversityof individual preferences and societal conditions” (para. I.3.b, United Nations

174

Peter MCDONALD

Proclamation on the International Year of the Family, 1994). Gilding considers
the radical perspective to be the most marginal in public debate in Australia tothe extent that “in the 1990s, feminist and gay activists are more likely to frame
their critique in liberal terms, upholding the diversity of families” (1997, 256).
Another theoretical theme that crosscuts the conservative-liberal-radical
paradigm is the public-private dichotomy. The liberal agenda is one in which
private agendas are public in the sense that they should be supported in the
public sphere, philosophically, legally, and financially. In the liberal agenda,
individual well-being is seen as the end product of a partnership between
government, employers, and families. In the conservative agenda, the family isplayed out in the private sphere but governed by norms and rules determined in
the public sphere. The public sphere addresses the family through its agent, thefather and husband. The principal roles of government in the conservative
agenda are to protect the privacy and the stability of the family and to ensure theeconomic well-being of the breadwinner. The position of the radical agenda in
relation to the public-private dichotomy is less clear. Sometimes, for example, inregard to sexual relationships, the radical stance will be that the state has no rolein the private affairs of individuals. At other times, it will call for state recognitionof homosexual marriages or for the removal of abusive fathers from their wives
and children. Gilding (1997, 256) points out that in some areas such as new
reproductive technologies, the conservative and radical agendas have coalescedaround the need for state restriction.
In this essay, I consider the main changes that have taken place in the natureof family relationships in Australia since 1970 using the conservative-liberalradical paradigm. The discussion also examines the public-private dichotomy
and, consequently, the role of public policy. I address the two main family
relationships: intimate couple relationships and parent-child relationships.

3. Intimate Couple Relationships
By “intimate couple relationships,” I am referring to relationships through whichpeople obtain both sexual and emotional intimacy. Marriage has been thecommon form of such relationships, but other forms exist. Survey evidence
suggests that most people value such relationships and would prefer to be partof one. The conservative perspective specifies marriage as the one and only
acceptable form of intimate relationship. Other intimate relationship types are
considered inadequate or inappropriate in some way. The liberal perspectiveemphasizes the individual’s need for such intimacy, but is not necessarilyprescriptive about the legal status of the relationship. Intimate relationships implyFamily Relationships in Australia: The Conservative-Liberal-Radical Debate

175

trust and commitment and these may be more or less likely in one form of
relationship than in another. The conservative claims that trust and commitment
are inherent in marriage. On the contrary, some with a radical perspective argue
that, because marriage is a well-established form of patriarchy, freely given
intimacy and commitment are more likely in forms of relationship other thanmarriage. The liberal view is that it is the trust and commitment in the relationshipthat is important, not the form of the relationship.
Consistent with the views of most people, there is a tendency in all threeperspectives to favor living in some form of intimate relationship. However, a choice
not to be in a relationship, considered to be deviant in the 1950s, is now less an issue
for all three perspectives. The conservative may see singleness as an unfortunate buttolerable outcome. The liberal may see singleness as a legitimate choice but not one
that would suit most people. The radical might see singleness as the inevitableoutcome of a society that does not offer people equality within relationships.
The statistical evidence (Table 1) shows that, in both 1971 and 1998, marriage
was the dominant way in which most Australians lived through the central agesof adult life (30–59 years). Nevertheless, there have been substantial changes inTable 1 Percentage of Australians legally married and not permanently
separated, by age and sex, 1971 and 1998
Age Group
15–19
20–24
25–29
30–34
35–39
40–44
45–49
50–54
55–59
60–64
65–69
70–74
75–79
80–84
85+

Males

Females

1971

1998

1971

1998

1.4
35.1
71.5
82.6
85.0
84.8
84.6
84.1
83.1
80.7
76.5
70.4
62.5
51.3
35.5

0.2
5.8
31.2
54.8
65.5
70.2
73.1
75.4
77.0
77.8
77.1
75.6
71.8
64.2
49.0

8.7
62.0
84.3
88.6
88.8
87.0
84.1
79.2
72.3
61.8
49.7
36.1
24.1
14.0
6.0

0.7
13.4
44.3
63.0
69.1
70.9
72.1
72.8
72.2
68.8
61.2
50.8
37.8
23.2
10.5

Sources: 1971 Census of Population and Housing, Demographic Characteristics, Australia, table 1,
Bureau of Census and Statistics Australia; Marriages and Divorces Australia, 1998, table 4.3,
Australian Bureau of Statistics, catalog no. 3310.0.
Note:
The published 1998 percentages for currently married have been adjusted to currently
married and living together using proportions married but permanently separated, by age
and sex, obtained from the 1996 Census of Population and Housing. It is assumed that the
proportion of married persons who were permanently separated was the same in 1998 foreach age and sex group as it was in 1996.

176

Peter MCDONALD

the proportions married at both the younger and the older ages.
The relationships studied in an Australian National University (ANU) Negotiating
the Life Course Survey, conducted in Australia in 1996–97, included same-sex
relationships. The information was obtained by asking people: Are you married
or in a relationship? If the answer was yes, the respondent was asked the genderof the partner. Less than 1% (0.9%) of all relationships were same-sex
relationships. The 1996 census also sought to determine the proportion of samesex relationships. The incidence identified by the census was much lower thanthat found in the Life Course Survey. Until better estimates are obtained, we must
conclude that same-sex relationships in which the couple lives together are avery small fraction of all intimate couple relationships.
3.1. Intimate Relationships: The Youngest Adult Ages: 20–29 Years

At the youngest ages (less than 30 years), the drop in the proportion married ismassive. In 1971, 62% of women aged 20–24 were married, but in 1998 only 13%
were married. This is the result of a powerful movement away from the earlymarriage pattern that characterized the 1940–70 period. This is not an area ofcontroversy in the family debate. The conservative perspective does not call for a
return to early marriage and would tend to support the notion that there is a
“proper time to marry” which involves establishment of economic security andemotional maturity. The liberal perspective would strongly support the shift tolater marriage on the grounds that years of experience of adulthood prior to
marriage provide young people with a better appreciation of the options open tothem. In the liberal way of thinking, later marriage provides women with theopportunity to establish themselves in career terms and hence to be in a position
to enter marriage on more equal terms. For the radical, later marriage gives
young people time to realize for themselves that marriage is patriarchy and that
other options may be preferable.
Has the movement away from marriage among young people in their twenties
been associated with a burgeoning of other forms of relationships? We canaddress this question in a static or dynamic way. In the static approach, the living
arrangements of 20–29-year-olds at a point in time are examined. Four living
arrangement types are shown in Table 2. At a point in time, the proportion thatare living together without being married is the smallest of the four possible
states. The most prominent state for young people in their twenties is not being
in a relationship, followed by marriage and “living apart together” relationships.
Thus, from the static viewpoint, the alternative of living together without being
married does not appear to be widespread.
The dynamic approach considers people’s experience during their lifetime,

Family Relationships in Australia: The Conservative-Liberal-Radical Debate

177

Table 2 Living arrangements of Australian men and women aged 20–29,
1996–1997
Living Arrangement
Not presently in a relationship
In a relationship but not living together
Living together but not married
Married and living together
Total

Males
(%)

Females
(%)

44
15
13
28

31
20
16
33

100

100

Source: ANU Negotiating the Life Course Survey, 1996–97.

Table 3 Relationship experiences of Australian men and women aged 20–29,
1996–1997
Relationship Experience

Males

Females

All persons:% ever married% previously married but not now married% married now but married more than once
% who have ever lived together without being married

29
2
0
46

36
3
1
50

Ever married:% lived with spouse before first marriage% has lived with someone other than a spouse

71
16

55
14

Ever remarried:% lived with spouse before second marriage**

Source: ANU Negotiating the Life Course Survey, 1996–97.
* Fewer than 30 respondents.

rather than their circumstances at a point in time. Table 3 shows a selection of
measures that indicate the experience of young Australians of various relationshipsituations. There is little difference between the proportions who are currently
married and living with their spouse (Table 2) and the proportions who have everbeen married (Table 3). Also, the proportions who have married more than onceare very small. That is, breakdown of their own marriage is not an importantfeature of the lives of 20–29-year-olds. However, the dynamic approach provides
a very different perspective to the static approach in relation to the frequency ofliving together relationships. Almost 50% of all men and women aged 20–29 have
lived together without being married, including those who lived together before
their marriage. Among those who have married, 71% of men and 55% of women
had lived with their spouse before the marriage. Thus, a dynamic approach showsthat living together relationships occur much more commonly than we would
conclude from the static approach. The implication of this is that living together

178Peter MCDONALD

relationships are not lasting relationships.
The ANU Negotiating the Life Course Survey shows that about 90% of living
together relationships contracted in the late 1980s had been ended by separationor marriage within about 8 years of formation and only 24% were intact after
about 4 years (McDonald 1998). Hence, although, in Australia, living together
may be a short-term alternative to marriage, it appears not to be an alternative
form of permanent relationship. There may be a small number of people whose
preference is for a sequence of short-term, nonmarital relationships and a small
number who have lasting living together relationships, but, in general, living
together in Australia is not an alternative to marriage. Instead, for a highproportion of people, it is an integral part of the process of getting married. Thisis counter to the standpoint of both conservatives and radicals. Both portray
living together as if it were an alternative form of permanent relationship, one
seeing it as an inadequate alternative, the other seeing it as a desirable
alternative. For the majority who live together before they marry and for whom
living together is part of the marriage process, an antiliving together agenda iseffectively an antimarriage agenda. Conservatives, therefore, tend to marginalize
their message about the importance of marriage by not recognizing that a sizable
majority of people enter marriage via a living together relationship.
Those who do not live together before marriage are identified by theirethnicity and their religiosity. People of Mediterranean origin and Asian origin aremuch less likely to live together before marriage than other groups. For example,
only 16% of people whose mother had been born in a Mediterranean country
lived together before marriage. Also, the percentage who live together before
marriage rises as the level of religiosity falls. For people for whom religion was
not at all important in their lives, 80% lived together before marriage. This fell to
33% for those for whom religion was very important in their lives (McDonald
1998). In 1996–97, religion was important or very important in the lives of lessthan 30% of Australians aged 20–29.
Over the past 30 years, there has been an important change in relationshippatterns at this age. The 1996–97 ANU Negotiating the Life Course Survey has
shown that, over time, first living together relationships have become more likely
to break up than to end in marriage. Facilitated by the availability of reliable
methods of birth control, a pattern of young people living together prior to
marriage began to be prominent in the 1970s. At that time, most living together
relationships led to marriage. More recently, however, these first living together
relationships have been more likely to break up than to lead to marriage. The shift
to later ages at marriage is both a cause and a consequence of this trend. But thelonger marriage is delayed, the less likely it is to occur at all, and, certainly, theproportion of Australians who ever marry has fallen sharply since the early 1970s.

Family Relationships in Australia: The Conservative-Liberal-Radical Debate

179This recent trend presents something of a dilemma for the liberal. If the mostdesirable end result for most people is marriage, is there a question about a trend
in behavior that clearly makes marriage less likely to occur? The trend maysustain the case of the radical that the gender inequality inherent in relationships
or the unfavorable nature of institutional structures relevant to young people(employment, housing) leads to fragmentation and uncertainty. The conservative
case that people should simply marry without living together is not well
supported by this trend. First, as already indicated, most people would not marryat all unless they had lived together beforehand. Second, we could not expectthat couples whose living together relationship broke up would have stayed
together if they had married without first living together, and the trauma of
ending a marriage would have been greater.
3.2. Intimate Relationships: Persons Aged 30–39

The married state was much less common in 1998 than in 1971 for people intheir thirties (Table 1 above). This is where the political debate about marriage
heats up. The conservatives would prefer to see most people in their thirties in
the married state. They would be particularly concerned if people in their thirties
were living in some other form of relationship. The radicals would be happierwith even lower percentages married and would approve if the shift away frommarriage was related to a shift into other, more egalitarian forms of relationship.
Liberals are ambivalent and uncertain about the situation. They have a strong
sense that being in a relationship is a good thing and, as marriage is by far themost common form of intimate relationship for people in their thirties, perhaps
the percentage married ideally should be higher. On the other hand, liberals
would be loath to make pronouncements in individual cases and would defend
the reasons why people in this age group are not married.
The main alternative to being married in this age group is not being in a
relationship at all (Table 4). Only 8% of people were living together without being
married and between 3% and 7% were in relationships but not living together.
The dynamic view of the relationships of this age group is shown in Table 5.
Marriage breakdown is now a feature of the history of relationships. For example
23% of all women in this age range (26% of all ever married women) have beenpreviously married or married more than once. This is well on the way to theestimated 40% of first marriages that end in divorce. The rise in the rate ofdivorce took place over a short period of years, mainly in the 1970s. In the past
20 years, there has been little further increase in the divorce rate.
The high incidence of marriage breakdown is abhorred by the conservative.
Indeed, reduction of the divorce rate is a rallying cry of the conservative

180

Peter MCDONALD

perspective on the family. The liberal would probably like to see a lower divorce
rate, but achieved by means other than making divorce harder to obtain. The
liberal would also say that, while it is a good thing to provide supports tomarriage so that relationships continue, a high divorce rate is inevitable and wemust adjust to this situation. The radical looks upon a high divorce rate as aconsequence of all that the radical perspective says is wrong with the institutionof marriage, that is, as a justification of the radical position. The debate aboutmarriage breakdown is at the center of the differences between the different
perspectives in the conservative-liberal-radical paradigm.
The dynamic view provided in Table 5 also shows that 60% of all 30–39-yearolds have lived with a partner to whom they were not married at some time intheir lives. This again is a very different picture to that provided in the static
analysis of Table 4. In most cases, respondents later married the person withwhom they had lived, but 28% of men and 21% of women in this age group had
lived with someone they did not marry.
Table 4 Living arrangements of Australian men and women aged 30–39,
1996–1997
Living Arrangement
Not presently in a relationship
In a relationship but not living together
Living together but not married
Married and living together
Total

Males
(%)

Females
(%)

17
7
8
68

14
3
8
75

100

100

Source: ANU Negotiating the Life Course Survey, 1996–97.

Table 5 Relationship experiences of Australian men and women aged 30–39,
1996–1997
Relationship Experience

Males

Females

All persons:% ever married% previously married but not now married% married now but married more than once
% who have ever lived together without being married

76
8
6
60

88
13
10
62

Ever married:% lived with spouse before first marriage% has lived with someone other than a spouse

52
28

51
21

Ever remarried:% lived with spouse before second marriage*

86

Source: ANU Negotiating the Life Course Survey, 1996–97.
* Fewer than 30 respondents.

Family Relationships in Australia: The Conservative-Liberal-Radical Debate

181

3.3. Intimate Relationships: Persons Aged 40–54 and 55 and OverThe decline from 1971 to 1998 in the proportion of people who were married
and living with their spouse is still quite evident for ages 40–54 but is somewhat
less prominent than it was at younger ages (Table 1 above). Again, the main
alternative living arrangement was not being in a relationship. Other alternatives
accounted for only small fractions of people (Table 6).
The dynamic view (Table 7) shows that very high proportions of this age
group were married at some time.1 These percentages are much higher than thelevels reached by older cohorts. On the other hand, 33% of all women in this age

Table 6 Living arrangements of Australian men and women aged 40–54,
1996–1997
Living Arrangement
Not presently in a relationship
In a relationship but not living together
Living together but not married
Married and living together
Total

Males
(%)

Females
(%)

14
2
4
80

17
2
7
74

100

100

Source: ANU Negotiating the Life Course Survey, 1996–97.

Table 7 Relationship experiences of Australian men and women aged 40–54,
1996–1997
Relationship Experience

Males

Females

All persons:% ever married% previously married but not now married% married now but married more than once
% who have ever lived together without being married

93
13
10
48

95
21
13
40

Ever married:% lived with spouse before first marriage% has lived with someone other than a spouse

33
22

23
13

Ever remarried:% lived with spouse before second marriage

68

78

Source: ANU Negotiating the Life Course Survey, 1996–97.

1

The percentages ever married in the survey are a little higher than those recorded at the 1996
census. The equivalent percentages ever married in this age range from the 1996 census were
90% for men and 94% for women.

182Peter MCDONALD

range were either previously married or married more than once. Hence, while
those with a conservative perspective would approve of the extent to which thiscohort has married, divorce is again the worrying feature for the conservative. The
dynamic view given by Table 7 also shows that almost half the men in this age
group and 40% of the women had lived with a partner outside marriage. Almost
70% of men and 78% of women in this age group who had remarried had lived
with their spouse before the marriage. Again, if remarriage is desirable, then theconservative must expect that people will live together before they marry again.
In contrast to the younger age groups, people aged 60 and over, particularly
women, were much more likely to be married in 1998 than they were in 1971
(Table 1 above). This change is due both to an increase in the prominence ofmarriage after about 1940 and to improved rates of old age survival in the past
25 years. These are not changes that would figure highly in the debate aboutfamilies, but, given that spouses are the first carers in the society, this trend has
important and positive implications for aged care.

4. The Parent-Child RelationshipThe relationship between parents and children has changed in many ways since the1970s. The three main changes have been that children are now much more likely to
be born outside marriage, the relationship between the child’s parents is much more
likely to have been ended, and the mother of the child is much more likely to be in
the labor force. All of these changes run strongly counter to the conservative
perspective on families. The conservative places heavy emphasis on the situation inwhich children are raised. The conservative ideal is that children are raised in amarriage of both the natural parents of the child where the mother of the child is notin paid employment. The liberal also would express a preference that children growup with both their natural parents, but that this ideal often will not be possible. For
the benefit of children whose parents live apart, the liberal will call for support for
single-parent families and social tolerance for those who are in this situation. The
conservative sees such support and tolerance as incentives for parents to end theirrelationships. The conservative would prefer to see divorce made much moredifficult for those who have the care of children. Likewise, where a child is born
outside marriage, the conservative sees social support for mothers in this situation as
stimulating such behavior. The liberal takes the view that children should be
supported irrespective of the way in which they were born. The radical perspectiveis that any person who has a child has a right to social support for that child and forthe relationship between the parent and the child. It is the parent-child relationshipthat is paramount for the radical, not the relationship between the child’s parents.

Family Relationships in Australia: The Conservative-Liberal-Radical Debate

183

The liberal perspective strongly supports increased levels of gender equity infamilies. Recognizing that young women are now provided with educational andemployment opportunities that are equivalent to those of young men, the liberal caseargues that it is incumbent on the state to support and facilitate the employment ofmothers in the paid labor market. This involves initiatives such as provision of
support for child care and for working conditions that more readily enable parents tocombine work and childrearing. The conservative sees the employment of mothers
as the root cause of social problems related to children and young people. The
mother at home is able to provide much greater time and much greater care to herchildren than a mother who is working. A child with a full-time mother feels that heor she is a valued child. Full-time care by the mother is valued at all ages of thechild, but especially when the child has not yet commenced school. Governments inAustralia, in recognition of the chasm between the views of liberals andconservatives, have attempted to please both through the provision of “choice.”
Maximum government benefits now flow on one hand to mothers whose work
attachment is highest and on the other hand to mothers whose work attachment islowest, i.e., to the extremes. When maximum benefits are provided at the extremes,
disincentives are created as we move away from the extremes and toward the center.
In relation to work choices for parents, in 1998, 6% of dependent children incouple families and 58% of dependent children in single-parent families had no
parent employed (ABS 1999).
4.1. The Parentage of Children

In June 1996 the proportions of Australian children who were living with boththeir natural parents was 85% for 0–4-year-olds, 79% for 5–9-year-olds, and 73%
for 10–14-year-olds. Among those not living with both natural parents, by far the
majority lived with only their mother in a one-parent family. Hence, few
Australian children did not live with their mother and the sizable majority lived
with both their natural parents. The family type of children in the ages 0–11 isshown in Table 8.
Table 8 Family type of Australian children, 1997
Age of Child

Couple Family(%)

One-Parent Family
(%)

Total
(%)

0–2
3–4
5–11
12–14

85.3
82.7
80.7
80.8

14.7
17.3
19.3
19.2

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Source: ABS (1999, 22).

184

Peter MCDONALD

One-parent families generally come into being in one of four ways: divorce orseparation from a marriage, widowhood, separation from a living together
relationship, and birth to a woman who is not in a relationship. Except for
widowhood which has become increasingly less common, all of these paths tosingle parenthood have become more common since the 1970s. As aconsequence, the incidence of one-parent families has been increasing. Of all
families with dependent children in 1998, 21.5% had one parent. This compareswith 16.6% in 1991, 14.6% in 1986, 13.2% in 1981, and 9.2% in 1974. In 1998, in
89% of all one-parent families with dependent children, the parent was a woman,almost always the mother of the children. The percentage of one-parent families
that are female-headed has not changed much during the past 20 years and, if
anything, appears to be increasing (McDonald 1995; ABS 1999).
The registered marital status of single parents in 1997 shows that 62% wereseparated or divorced from a marriage, 31% had never married, and 7% were
widowed (ABS 1999, 23). A high proportion of those who never married would
have had their children as part of a living together relationship, and the family
became a one-parent family because the living together relationship broke down.
Also, some of the births to single parents who were separated or divorced from amarriage or widowed may have occurred outside the marriage. The proportion of
all births that were births to women who were unmarried (ex-nuptial births)
increased from 9% in 1971 to 28% in 1997. However, the paternity of the child
was acknowledged on the child’s birth registration for 85% of ex-nuptial births in
1997. Overall, paternity was not acknowledged for only 4% of all births. Evidence
from the ANU Negotiating the Life Course Survey shows that, for 74% of exnuptial births in the 1990s, the parents of the child were living together at thetime of the birth; in a further 8% of cases, the parents had lived together before
or after the birth of the child. Thus, the parents of the child had neither married
nor lived together for 18% of ex-nuptial births constituting only 5% of all births,
virtually the same as the percentage of births where the father was not
acknowledged. Ex-nuptial births are often associated with teenagers in the publicmind. In fact, less than 1 in 6 of all ex-nuptial births in 1997 were to mothers intheir teens.
In summary, almost all Australian children live with their mother and thesizable majority live with both of their natural parents. One-parent families havebeen increasing mainly because of marriage breakdown and the breakdown ofliving together relationships, but the father is acknowledged on the birth record
for all but 4% of the children. Among those children who were not living with
their natural father, again a sizable majority had contact with their father. For
children under the age of 5 who had a parent living elsewhere, 73% had contact
with that parent. For those aged 5–11, this percentage fell to 63% (ABS 1999, 28).

Family Relationships in Australia: The Conservative-Liberal-Radical Debate

185

These findings suggest that conservative and radical pronouncements of thedemise of the Western family, based on the situation of children, are premature,at least in Australia. There is support here for the liberal case that assistanceshould be provided to help couples stay together but that the breakdown ofsome families is inevitable, and so, in most cases, parenting relationships should
be fostered for the minority of children whose parents do not live together.
4.2. Labor Force Participation of Parents
4.2.1. General Considerations

The proportion of mothers in the labor force rose from the 1970s to the 1990s
from about 25% to 50% for mothers whose youngest child was aged 0–4 andfrom about 30% to 70% where the youngest child was aged 5–9. Much of theincreased participation of mothers was in the form of part-time work, and thisform of involvement expanded rapidly in the 1980s.
Besides having an effect on the number of children that women have,
postponement of the birth of the first child also fundamentally changes the labor
force experience of young women. The longer that the first birth is postponed,
the higher is the level of workforce experience gained prior to the birth of thefirst child. Obtaining qualifications and workforce experience are the two mostimportant means of human capital formation. In the 1950s and 1960s, when theage at first birth was low, women had little experience of the labor market before
they had their first child. Most were essentially beginning their careers when they
returned to the labor force after having children. Without experience and withmainly part-time return to the workplace, the chances of establishment in theircareers were lessened. The only advantage they had was that almost all other
women were in the same situation. Few women had no children and few had
only one child.
Today the situation is very different. Most women, before having their firstchild, have worked full-time for several years and most have establishedthemselves in some form of career. In 1998, 92% of women aged less than 35
who had a partner but no children were in the labor force. Of those who were
employed, 82% were employed full-time (ABS 1998). This changed experience ofyoung women has three important effects. First, it means that women have more
to lose if they lose their attachment to the labor force through having children.
Second, because they have a greater incentive to return to the labor force, they
are likely to do so more quickly than was the case in previous generations.
Third, because they have a much higher level of human capital than previous
generations, they are more readily employable than mothers of earlier
generations. In addition, those who return after childbearing now compete with a

186Peter MCDONALD

higher proportion of women who have had no children.
From observation of women’s labor market participation in relation to thenumber of children they have, it is possible to calculate the loss of lifetime
earnings that a woman experiences because of the birth of a child. This wasdone by Beggs and Chapman (1988) using the 1986 ANU Family Survey and by
Chapman et al. (1999) using the 1997 ANU Negotiating the Life Course Survey.
This research shows that the largest part of lost earnings is due to the birth of thefirst child. Losses related to subsequent births are considerably lower. However,by comparing the results of the two studies, Chapman et al. found that the lossof earnings related to the birth of the first child dropped substantially between
the two surveys. In 1997 dollars, the lifetime earnings lost through having thefirst child for women who had completed high school fell from $435,000 in 1986
to $200,000 in 1997. This indicates that the greater level of attachment to thelabor force that today’s young women gain before they have their first childenhances their lifetime earnings through greater attachment and higher earnings
after they return to the labor force.
From the perspective of gender equity, it is worth noting that the lifetime lossof earnings for men who have children is less than zero. That is, men who havechildren actually have higher lifetime earnings than those who do not havechildren. The fact that this is a very different story to that of women who havechildren confirms the emphasis taken in this essay on the changing employment
patterns of mothers rather than of fathers. At the same time, with rising
expectations and increased insecurity of male employment, employment ofmothers provides both additional family income in the good times and a hedge
against unemployment of fathers in the bad times. Most young couples today see
two incomes as being necessary to maintain the lifestyle to which they aspire.
That two incomes are required in today’s environment is also indicated by the
recent expansion of tax rebates to one-income families with children less than 5
years old.
4.2.2. Employment Circumstances of Mothers According to the Number and Ages of
Their Children

Decisions about the timing and number of children are much more likely to be
influenced by labor market considerations when women have developed ahigher level of attachment to the labor force. It is important therefore to consider
changes in the employment circumstances of mothers with varying numbers andages of children. The following discussion is based on analysis of the 1% sample
files from the 1986, 1991, and 1996 Australian Censuses.
Among couple families with one child, the percentage of mothers employed
was around 25% for those whose child was less than 1 year old and there wasFamily Relationships in Australia: The Conservative-Liberal-Radical Debate

187

Table 9 Employment of Australian mothers in couple families according to thenumber and ages of their children, 1986, 1991, and 1996
Ages of Children

Percentage with Mother Employed at Least
1 Hour per Weeka
1986

1991

1996

Couple families with 1 child
0
1–2
3–5b
Primary school
Secondary school+

24
42
48
56
60

27
53
55
60
66

28
50
62
63
69

Couple families with 2 children
0 and 1–2
0 and 3–5b0 and primary+
Both 1–2 or 1–2 and 3–5b
1–2 and primary+
Both 3–5b
3–5b and primary+
Both primaryPrimary and secondary+
Both secondary+

14
23
*
33
38
37
45
55
59
63

28
28
31
41
45
45
53
66
69
68

22
24
27
48
53
45
56
65
67
75

Couple families with 3 children
All preschool
2 preschool and 1 primary+
1 preschool and 2 primary+All primary
2 primary and 1 secondary+
1 primary and 2 secondary+All secondary+

22
27
37
52
52
60
63

27
34
45
54
65
62
71

26
33
49
61
64
74
70

Couple families with 4 children
At least 1 preschool child
All primary+

29
47

32
50

30
52

a

Mothers less than age 55.
3–5-year-olds who are not yet in primary school.
* Denominator is less than 100 mothers.

blittle change in the percentage employed over the decade (Table 9). When thewomen had two children, one of which was aged less than 1 year, the picture
was much the same. The data thus suggest that it is the age of the youngest childrather than the number of children that determines the employment of the motherwhen one of the children is a baby. However, among those with a baby, where
there was only one child, women were a little more likely to work 25 hours per
week or more (about 50% of those employed with one child and 40% of those
employed with two children). Although the numbers are small and hence lessreliable, the percentages of single parents with a baby who were employed were188Peter MCDONALD

Table 10 Employment of Australian mothers in one-parent families according to
the number and ages of their children, 1986, 1991, and 1996
Ages of Children

Percentage with Mother Employed at Least
1 Hour per Weeka
1986

1991

1996

One-parent families with 1 child
0
1–2
3–5c
Primary school
Secondary school+

11
20
33
36
52

15b
23
36
45
61

10
30
44
52
63

One-parent families with 2 children
Younger is aged 0b
Younger is aged 1–2
Younger is aged 3–5c
Younger is in primary school
Younger is in secondary school+

4
14
28
39
52

17
22
36
51
67

9
21
31
53
71

a

Mothers less than age 55.
Denominator is less than 100 mothers.
c 3–5 year-olds who are not yet in primary school.
bmuch lower than for mothers in couple families with a baby (Table 10).
Among couples with one child, the percentage of mothers who were
employed rises as the age of the child rises. In 1991 and 1996, over 50% of
women with one child aged 1–2 were employed, with about half of those
employed working 25 hours or more per week. Again, when there were twochildren, the younger of whom was aged 1–2, the employment rate of mothers in1996 was similar to that for women with one child of this age. That is, again, it
was the age of the youngest child that mattered rather than the total number ofchildren. This was not the case in 1986 and 1991, however. The employment rateof women with two children where the younger was aged 1–2 rose sharply
across the decade. Furthermore, the proportion of these women employed for 25
hours or more per week also tended to rise in the same period.
In regard to child care, the most important age group of children has beenthose aged 3–5 who are not yet in school. In one-child families where the child
was aged 3–5, the proportion of mothers employed increased significantly acrossthe decade—from 48% in 1986, to 55% in 1991, to 62% in 1996. Similar rises
across the decade were evident for those with two children where the younger
was aged 3–5. For one-parent families with a child aged 3–5, an increase inemployment over the decade was also evident but it was not as great as forcouple families. Thus, the targeting of child-care assistance to this group over the
decade 1986–96 seems to have had a substantial effect on the employment ofFamily Relationships in Australia: The Conservative-Liberal-Radical Debate

189

mothers where the youngest child was aged 3–5. Indeed, in 1996, where there wasonly one child, the employment rate of mothers in couple families was almost thesame for those whose child was aged 3–5 as for those with an older child.
This conclusion provides a different impression from that given by Gregory(1999). Gregory concluded that “the rapid expansion of child care places that
occurred over the 1991–96 period was associated with a marked decline in therate of growth of employment of women with dependent children” (p. 14). Twocomments can be made. First, it is preferable to examine the employment rate of
the mothers with children of the age to which the new child-care places weremainly directed rather than the employment rate of mothers with dependent
children of any age. Second, the rate of growth of any percentage will tend toslow down as the percentage gets larger. In these circumstances, it is preferable
to look at the absolute shift in the percentage employed rather than thepercentage shift in the percentage employed.
Over 60% of couple mothers with one child aged 3–5 worked 25 hours or more
per week at all three censuses (63% in 1996). This figure was a little lower where
there were two children and the younger was aged 3–5 (54% in 1996), but, again,
there was little change in this proportion across the censuses. For single motherswith one child aged 3–5, however, there was a substantial fall in the proportion
who were working 25 hours or more per week. The percentage fell from 80%
working 25 hours per week or more in 1986 to 56% in 1996. This was not somuch because there was a shift among individual women from full-time to parttime work, but rather that the addition to the employment rate during the decade
was made up almost entirely of single parents working part-time.
Employment rates of mothers in all categories increased across the decade
when all children were of school age. The rises were more substantial, however,for those with somewhat greater difficulties in relation to child care, that is, single
mothers and couple mothers with three children. Again, the increase during thedecade in out-of-school hours care seems to have been effective in promoting
the employment of mothers, especially those with heavier demands.
As the employment rate of women is relatively low when they have a baby
irrespective of the numbers and ages of other children, the timing of births
determines whether women have one longer interval out of the labor force (shortintervals between births) or a succession of periods in and out of the labor force
as they have each successive birth (longer intervals between births). An
investigation of women’s preferences and behavior in this regard would be useful.
I have examined the ages of the younger siblings of children aged 3–5 (not yet inschool with no older siblings) at the 1996 census. This suggests that women aremuch more likely to fall in the category of one absence from the labor force withthe length of the absence being dependent on the number of children.

190Peter MCDONALD

4.2.3. Future Employment Rates of Mothers and Policy Responses

Couples and especially women will be making decisions about family formation
and about employment within the social and institutional context of a future
Australia. Several aspects of that context will influence both decisions about
employment and decisions about the number of children that people have.
The first set of social and institutional considerations is changes in attitudes andvalues. Young women today, before they have commenced having children, havea much stronger attachment to the labor force than was the case for previous
generations. They have more to lose by not working. They are more highly
educated and have been socialized through education, family, and the workplace
to expect to be employed in the paid labor market. Housing mortgages areusually based on an assumption that both parents will be working. There is anindication that young men welcome the additional income that a working partner
obtains. In the 1997 ANU Negotiating the Life Course Survey, 71% of men aged
less than 30 opposed the notion that it is better for the husband to be theprincipal breadwinner while the wife takes primary responsibility for the children.
Also, young people may have become accustomed to a higher spending lifestyle
before their first child was born. Finally, employment rates of mothers of young
children are higher in similar countries such as Canada (Peron et al. 1999,
264–69), the United States, and the Nordic countries than they are in Australia. Allof these considerations point to an increase in the employment rate of mothers ofyoung children in Australia in the future. On the other hand, there has been littlechange in the extent to which young men are prepared to share household work,and this will be an obstacle to mothers taking up paid employment (Baxter 1996).
The second set of considerations relates to the labor market. If the economy
remains strong, there should be a rising demand for the employment of young
mothers because of the skills that they hold as a result of their high skill levels
and workforce experience. There are also signs of a tightening of the skilled endof the labor market as the cohorts entering the labor force become smaller. The
advance of technology and the growth of the service and information sectors alsofavor the employment of women.
On the other side of the equation, mothers of young children require job security
and predictability and family-friendly workplaces. They also need to be able towork for the number of hours that best fits their family responsibilities. If they areunable to return to work part-time or if their employer puts excessive demands onthem, then the employment rate of mothers will fall. Alternatively, women will havefewer children. Flexibility of work hours benefits women with young children, but
this is not necessarily the case if the flexibility is all in the control of the employer.
Twelve-hour shifts or early-morning starts, beneficial to many workers without
young children, are less likely to be in the interests of those with young children.

Family Relationships in Australia: The Conservative-Liberal-Radical Debate

191

An argument is often made that employers will benefit from family-friendly
workplace policies because they will be able to retain or attract the best workers. If
this were so, we would expect employers to support new approaches to familyfriendly workplaces. The evidence contradicts this. Employer organizations almost
always oppose suggested new initiatives to make workplaces more family-friendly.
The third set of factors relates to the economic returns from employment. This
includes the wage rate that employed mothers can obtain, the costs of child care,the costs of working including transportation costs, and the changes in entitlements
through the tax-transfer system as mothers take on employment. Costs of child carehave been increasing in recent years, and the loss of benefits from the tax-transfer
system resulting from employment has increased through the introduction of
single-income family tax rebates. The costs of child care and the single-income
family tax rebate provide an incentive for the father to work more hours than hedoes at present and for the mother not to work. For example, where the husband
works 40 hours per week and the wife none, the couple will be better off if heworks an additional 10 hours per week than if she works 10 hours per week. The
effect of these changes on employment decisions of mothers is yet to be assessed.
Finally, employment decisions of mothers of young children will be affectedby the availability of quality, affordable, and accessible child care. It has beenargued above that many parents are unable to obtain inexpensive, informal carethrough the extended family. This implies that quality, affordable, and accessible
child care must be provided through the formal sector. Australia has taken great
strides to provide for this type of care over the past 15 years. Progressively, we
have been building a system of which we can be justly proud. The argument
here would be that we should continue to build the system. While a carefulmodeling exercise is required, the indications from the analysis in this report arethat the demand for child care places, which rose sharply during the 1990s, islikely to level off in the near future.
In summary, Australian women tend to increase their labor force participation
as their youngest child ages. Participation rates step up when the child reaches
the first and third birthdays. Only a minority are working when the child isyounger than 1 year, but a clear majority are working when the youngest is aged
3–4. Part-time work is common. This middle pathway of participation is notsupported by current policy in Australia. Under the banner of the provision of
choice, present family policy allocates the highest financial rewards to those whotake the two most extreme choices—i.e., mothers who spend no time in paid
employment while they have young children and mothers who work full timefrom soon after the birth of their child. Mothers who spend no time in paid
employment have benefited from new tax policies that provide tax rebates for
single-income families. These advantages have become even greater under the192Peter MCDONALD

new tax package that commenced in the year 2000. At the other end of thespectrum, the new child-care benefit arrangements will provide the highest benefits
to mothers who work the longest hours. The former Child Care Rebate, available to
all working parents, was based on the cost of child care irrespective of the hours
worked. Its replacement bases benefits on hours worked, with the maximum
benefit flowing to those who work the longest hours. Thus, present policy
provides incentives for women to take the extreme choices and, consequently,
disincentives to make choices that lie between the extremes. Yet all the evidenceof preference and behavior is that most families prefer a middle course.
Policy favors the extreme choices because governments have attempted toaccommodate views about the employment of mothers that extend from theconservative to the radical instead of recognizing that the reality of most people’s
lives lies between the extremes. More specifically, the problem is that policy only
distinguishes between those who have children under and over age 5. All families
with a child under the age of 5 (or not in primary school) are treated in the sameway irrespective of whether their youngest child is aged 6 months or 4 years.
Behavior and preference data, however, show that families themselves make stark
distinctions between these circumstances. Families prefer to increase their labor
force participation and the time that a child is in child care as the child ages frombirth to school age. Policy would be more effective if it were more attuned to these
preferences. Essentially this means greater emphasis on leave and income support
when children are very young (under 1 year), a mixture of income support andchild care much like the present child-care system (but more generous) whenchildren are aged 1–2 and universal, and free early childhood education with childcare at the beginning and the end of the school day for children who are aged 3–4.

5. Discussion
In the past 30 years in Australia, rules and norms governing family relationships
have been liberalized. Much of the change occurred in the 1970s, but it has beensustained since that time with less assault from the conservative agenda than has
been the case in the United States and the United Kingdom. In regard to the
public-private dichotomy, public support of the liberalized agenda is much more
prominent in Australia than in the United States. In Australia, state support takes
the following main forms: a liberal divorce law, equal treatment of marriage andliving together relationships in most state systems (immigration, social security,
taxation, health, child custody), provision of a livable single-parent pension thatis not work-tested, abortion free to all through the national health system, statesubsidized housing, state subsidized child care, and various provisions that

Family Relationships in Australia: The Conservative-Liberal-Radical Debate

193

support the employment of women. At the same time, aspects of theliberalization of family relationships have not extended as far in Australia as they
have in the United States. The divorce rate, the labor force participation rate ofmothers, and the proportion of children born outside marriage all stand at
significantly lower levels in Australia than in the United States.
People’s lives can be characterized in three broad spheres: the self, theintimate, and the social (McDonald 1996). In the conservative agenda, rules andnorms of behavior are set in the public or social sphere that largely determine
how people behave in the intimate sphere of family relationships. The third
sphere of life, the self, is expected to conform to these rules and norms. In theradical agenda, autonomy is provided to individuals (the self ) to determine theirown intimate outcomes free of social rules and norms. The liberal agenda floats
between these two. Social changes in the past 30 years have provided moreautonomy to individuals to determine their own individual and intimate lives. In
other words, conservative social rules and norms have been greatly relaxed, and,indeed, often the state has paid the financial costs of liberalization. However,autonomy provides an increased range of choices such that most people
experience conflict between the three broad spheres of life: their social sphere(particularly work), their sphere of self (personal autonomy), and their intimate
sphere (couple relationships and parent-child relationships). The need to resolve
the conflict between individuation (autonomy) and fusion (intimacy) was the
subject of the presidential address to the American Psychological Association by
Janet Spencer in 1985 (reported in Stevens-Long and Commons 1992). These
conflicts are acute in the transition periods of the life structure such as forming
and ending couple relationships and having children. The changes in women’s
and men’s lives over the past 30 years have accentuated the degree of conflict.
The liberal approach to this increased conflict has been to allow people
greater flexibility in the ways in which they arrange their relationships and toprovide new supports in combining work and family responsibilities. The growthof cohabiting unions, divorce, later marriage, later childbearing, and having
children outside of marriage can all be seen as social experiments that the society
has been prepared to tolerate as people seek their own solutions to theseconflicts. Rather than being driven by conformity to rules and norms, behavior
becomes ethical, driven by personal principles (Stevens-Long and Commons 1992,
85). This reliance on ethical behavior, however, is at once the strength and theweakness of this social approach. In Australia, the liberal social experimentation
is holding up relatively well and, in general, has community support. But as in the
United States and the United Kingdom, the argument is mounted that the financial
cost of these social experiments should be borne by those who wish to engage inthem rather than by the state. Through this means, changes in family relationships

194Peter MCDONALD

become caught up in social debate about welfare dependency. And theconservative-liberal-radical debate about the family continues.

References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 1976. Labor Force Status and Other Characteristics ofFamilies, November 1974. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
—. 1998. Labor Force Status and Other Characteristics of Families, June 1998. Catalog no.
6224.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
—. 1999. Children, Australia: A Social Report. Catalog no. 4119.0. Canberra: Australian
Bureau of Statistics.
Baxter, J. 1996. “Gender Equality and Participation in Domestic Labor: A Cross National
Perspective.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 28(3): 220–47.
Beggs, J., and B. Chapman. 1988. “The Forgone Earnings from Childrearing in Australia.”
Center for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper 190. Canberra: Australian National
University.
Bogle, J. 1996. “Feminism and the Family.” In The Family: There Is No Other Way, edited by B.
Muehlenberg, J. Santamaria, P. Westmore, and M. Woods. Melbourne: Australian Family
Association.
Carlson, A. 1996. “What Is the Family?” In The Family: There Is No Other Way, edited by B.
Muehlenberg, J. Santamaria, P. Westmore, and M. Woods. Melbourne: Australian Family
Association.
Chapman, B., Y. Dunlop, M. Gray, A. Liu, and D. Mitchell. “Children and Their Mother’s
Earnings.” Paper presented to the Conference on Labor Market Trends and Family Policies:
Implications for Children, Center for Economic Policy Research, Australian National
University, Canberra, 14–15 July 1999.
Gilding, M. 1997. Australian Families: A Comparative Perspective. Melbourne: Longman.
Gregory, R. “An Australian Overview.” Paper presented to the Conference on Labor Market
Trends and Family Policies: Implications for Children, Center for Economic Policy Research,
Australian National University, Canberra, 14–15 July 1999.
McDonald, P. 1995. Families in Australia: A Socio-demographic Perspective. Melbourne:
Australian Institute of Family Studies.
—. 1996. “Demographic Life Transitions: An Alternative Theoretical Paradigm.” HealthTransition Review, supp. 6: 385–92.
—. “Changing Families and Changing Relationships in Australia.” Paper presented to theConference of the Australian Population Association, Brisbane, 22–24 September 1998.
McEwin, M. 1998. “Family Statistics in Australia.” In The Siena Group Seminar, 2:15–20.
Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Peron, Y., H. Desrosiers, H. Juby, E. Lapierre-Adamcyk, C. Le Bourdais, N. Marcil-Gratton, and J.
Mongeau. 1999. Canadian Families at the Approach of the Year 2000. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Stacey, J. 1993. “Good Riddance to “the Family”: A Response to David Popenoe.” Journal of
Marriage and the Family 55 (August): 545–49.
Stevens-Long, J., and M. Commons. 1992. Adult Life: Development Processes. Mountain View,
Calif.: Mayfield Publishing.