The nuclear family has its physical expression in the single family house on a suburban block. In 1981 this accounted for 78% of Australian housing. Australia ranks first in home ownership among Western countries. In 1970 this was 68.7%, compared to 62.9% in the US, and 35% in Sweden.

Sydney with three million inhabitants in 1985 covered 4000 square kilometres. New York and London each with 7 million cover 1000 and 1500 square kilometres.

The fastest growing household type is the single person household. One in five households contain only one person, and inner and middle Sydney average three people per household.

Divorce

An Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) study examined children's situations 5-8 years after the separation of their parents. In 84% of cases children were living in the same household as their siblings, primarily with their mother. In this case the family is largely the same, but with the absence of one member, and is relatively stable. Of the sample of 523 divorced parents, in only 5 cases the children alternated between households. Only 13% of these children had no step-parents. More fathers had remarried than mothers, but in 43% of the cases both parents had remarried. However, more children were living in households without step-parents than in any other arrangement, and this seemed to imply that parents with children living with them were less likely to find a new partner.

Single parenthood usually brings a drop in affluence regardless of gender, and women's earnings are generally no more than 60% of men's.

Single Parents' policy

From the 1880s concern in the community rose over the declining birthrate, and women were urged to their duty to ensure the future population. Illegitimate children, previously seen as tainted and discardable, were now valuble future citizens.

The Maternity Act of 1912 allowed a 5 pounds benefit to all mothers at the time of birth regardless of marital status (but not race: Aboriginal and Asian mothers were excluded). This benefit was to allow women to have a midwife or doctor at their birth and thus reduce infant mortality, but in the public mind it was seen as a 'baby bonus' to increase the birthrate. However, it did not increase the birthrate or the illegitimacy rate. Opposition to this bill centred around the moral concerns of not distinguishing between deserving married mothers and undeserving unmarried mothers.

Between the two world wars the availability of positions declined for live-in domestic work, an option that often allowed single mothers to work and keep their children. By 1928 all Australian states had introduce adoption legislation. The bill's aim was to relieve the public purse of the cost of maintaining destitute children. Poor married parents were not threatened, but 'illegitimate parents' were to be shut out of their children's lives forever.

Initially both adoptive parents and mothers willing to give up their children were hard to find. Increasingly, however, mothers who turned to institutions for support for themselves or their children were given little choice. In some institutions mothers who signed adoption consents were not charged. Mothers that fell behind with payments lost the right to visit their child, who could then be put up for adoption. Now the single mother was seen as psychologically ill, and only capable of recovery if she gave up her child.

In the 30's the birthrate again declined, leading to a resurgence of 'pronatalist' ideas. Arthur Calwell, in his maiden speech in the Federal Parliament in 1940, called for government assistance in many areas of childhood, irrespective of the status of the mother. Although ex-nuptial births were falling, births within the first nine months of marriage were rising.

In 1941 Child Endowment was introduced, but did not apply to unmarried mothers with only one child. The Widow's Pension legislation of 1943 included deserted women, single mothers and women who had been in de facto relationships. In 1973 single mothers were granted a supporting pension.

Family Day Care

Family day care has been seen as an extension of the normal domestic and mothering duties of a woman, and not as a serious trained career. Its image has been changing over the last few decades, from the 'day care mum' of the 70s, to the 'home based child care worker' of the 80s, to a cottage industry in the 90s.

It has been a problematic feminist issue, as it liberates one set of women from traditional domestic roles, at the expense of another set.

Although in one study 18% of home day care workers reported previous tertiary training, for the majority this was not in child care, and many had interrupted a previous career at the time of their move into family day care. For some surveyed it is a career, whereas others saw it merely as an extension of existing domestic duties.

Sources:
Camilleri, Peter and Kennedy, Rosemary, 'Educational Issues for Family Day Care', Australian Journal of Early Childhood Vol 19 1994 p 39 - 44 ML 372.2105/2

Funder, Kate Children's Households and Families After Parental Separation Family Matters No 23 April 1989 p 47-48 ML Q306.8072094/2

Howe, R and Swain, S Saving the Child and Punishing the Mother:..., Journal of Australian Studies, soecial issue Women and the State, p 31-46 NSWSL N994.005/2

Rubbo, Anna Rethinking the suburban sprawl, Labor Forum, Vol 7 No. 2 p 25 -28

Swain, S Breaking the Barriers: An oral history of ... Oral History Association of Australia Journal No 12 1990 p 103-109

Wilson, J Single Fathers: An unnoticed group Australian Social Work Vol. 41 No 2 June 1988 p 9-11