Family Policy: Creative or Destructive?

Brian Easton

The transition of New Zealand Pākehā society from a frontier “quarry” economy to a sustainable, produce-based economy was accompanied by a social change from hard-living, single men to a socially cohesive domesticated family. This (partly fictional) ideal became a strong social symbol, not least to social administrators. At the same time two visions for society arose: social purity and social justice, with puritans stressing a traditional rule-based morality.

However, rules are harder to come by with the diversity of current family situations. Are there essential elements of a family the state should take into account to ensure social justice? Dependent children is an obvious one, but there is also the issue of dealing with the property of couples who have lived together.

Two examples where the government is increasingly involving itself are in the asset stripping of the elderly in care, where married couples are at a disadvantage, and parents increasingly finding themselves responsible for adult children.

The paper concludes that what family policy should do is concentrate on what it can and needs to do well - support dependent children - and leave the rest of us in our private lives to our voluntary choices, decisions and affections.