Editorial: Two parents still the family ideal

From time immemorial human beings have found that a man and woman cohabiting and sharing the care of their young is most conducive to social stability and the survival of the species. But New Zealand's Minister of Social Development disagrees. Steve Maharey told a family policy conference last week there was nothing especially good about the traditional two-parent family. "I know of no social science that says a nuclear family is more successful than other kinds," he said. "It's whether you have a loving, nurturing family."

Doubtless Mr Maharey was anxious to acknowledge the efforts of dedicated, hard-working, single parents, as he should. But is it necessary for him to deny the two-parent ideal? Most sole parents would readily tell them their situation is not ideal. They may be doing the best they can to bring up a child unaided, and can be justly proud of their effort. But in most cases they would be the first to say they would prefer to share the task with the right committed partner.

It would be comforting to think Mr Maharey's comment to the "Strengthening Families" conference was simply careless. But it was made on the eve of an announcement about the definition of family for the new Families Commission demanded by the Government's supporting party, United Future. The relative merits of single- and two-parent families have been a subject of some discussion between the parties and Mr Maharey's statement, however strange, must reflect a considered view.

Does he really know of no social science that says a nuclear family is more successful than other kinds? Sociology was Mr Maharey's subject at university, so he probably knows that children from single-parent families usually show up less well on any social indicator used. And he must have read countless studies that clearly imply a two-parent upbringing is more successful even if the sociologists typically cannot bring themselves to say so.

Of course "a loving nurturing family" matters more than the number of parents in the household. That is a little like saying good nutrition matters more than a balanced diet. The result is what matters but some arrangements are more likely to produce the result than others.

It seems to be the Government's serious view that two parents are not preferable to one. Mr Maharey was quite candid about that. In setting up the commission, he said, "We are not going to reinforce any particular kind of family structure." That is an extraordinary admission. It used to be that any responsible Government saw the reinforcement of two-parent families as sensible and vital for social well-being. That principle was uppermost in the platform of United Future at the last election. Now that party's leader, Peter Dunne, is telling us its commission will not favour any particular type of family.

How did this nonsense take hold? By all means, the state should help sole parents bring up children as best they can, and it need not discourage people from forming all sorts of relationships so long as those unions provide mutual comfort and satisfaction. But for the sake of genuine social welfare a Government should be doing everything in its power to see that children grow up with a father and a mother looking after them.

There is much in that project to occupy a Government of Labour's type. Encouraging fathers to share the child-care burden more equally is part of it. Employment conditions for working mothers are another. Taxation and income-support schemes can be tailored to encourage couples to fulfil their joint responsibilities.

But if bodies such as the new Families Commission are going to live in fear of favouring the traditional two-parent family they will be a waste of time and money. The first thing the commission ought do is present Mr Maharey with some social science on the relative success of the nuclear family. That might restore some sanity to this subject.