sense, not in a physical sense, but, nevertheless, I think many people would know that’s not the case. There are issues like this, the integration of diff erent cultures and values, we need to be mindful of.


The title of your speech is ‘The Family Business Model for the 21st century.’ How has the family business model changed in recent decades?


The business model for a family 50 years ago was dad earned the income and mum complied. The family business model going forward is one of a collaboration; a short-term contract that can be renewed every fi ve years or so. The whole concept of family relationships is changing from what we knew in the 20th century to the way in which we’re viewing in the 21st century. You can see it in the new census results where there is more of a sharing and collaborative relationship between Gen X and Gen Y couples than was the case with Baby Boomers where we had a male breadwinner and then a female coming back into the workforce in part-time work.


In the modem sense, the responsibilities are more likely to be shared and based on who actually earns the most income: if it’s the female, then she works; if it’s the male, then he works.


The whole idea of ‘till death do us part’ is very much a 20th century option—I don’t think that necessarily applies today. People simply do not have the tolerance for an unhappy or an unworkable relationship the way in which people would have tolerated previously.


The notion of a ‘renewable’ marriage contract: is it something that happens already and do you realistically view it as something that could become more popular in the future?


It’s funny that often the law and offi cial protocols follow, several years after, social behaviour. If you speak to Gen X or Gen Y—people in their 20s and 30s—they would say if a relationship is not working then it needs to be reviewed, refreshed or fi nished.


I’ve been married 34 years and it never occurred to me until the mid-1990s that I had a relationship!


No-one talked about their relationship in the 1980s, 70s or 60s. No married couple in the 1950s talked about, examined, analysed or evaluated their relationship.


This whole idea that there is a relationship that could be viewed or examined from diff erent perspectives is a very modern concept.


I think it’s also refl ective of our modern culture—short attention spans; me-focussed indulgence—as opposed to that pre-war, Great Depression era where people were very devout and religious. There was virtue in sacrifi ce and people put up with situations. I think that was very much at the forefront of the way women thought in the 1950s and 60s—there was a virtue behind it.


What implications could these new trends in family life have for family law?


It might be 20 or 30 years before we evolve into a situation where we get the model right (whatever the family business model will be in the 2050s and beyond). We’re moving from the old system to the new system and that transition might take 50 years. During that period of churn the business of family law will be very active indeed because nobody is really sure how this transition is going to work.


We do know that individuals will want to pursue their own interests—they will not put up with an unhappy relationship—and that they will manage, as best they can, the legal, fi nancial and custody issues fl owing from that. I simply see it as a period of churn heading towards a longer-term re-defi nition of marriage and relationships, which might end up being a marriage licence or lease arrangement that might be 10 years with an option for another 10 (if both parties agree—if they don’t agree, then a prearranged settlement of property and children might be the way to go).


We’re not at this point yet, by a long shot, but that might be something we see by the middle of the 21st century; just as 50 years ago if you talked about no-fault divorce people would have been aghast at that concept. What we fi nd shocking and confronting today, in 50 years’


time people might say it’s a better and more humane way to organise society.


What do you hope delegates will take away from your session at the Family Law Conference?


Hopefully I will have opened their eyes to the bigger picture direction of where Australians have been, where they are and where they’re going in relationships. I think where we’ve been is much diff erent to where we’re headed. If you get that bigger picture context then it’s much easier to deal with the churn we can expect in this sector over the next ten years.


PROFESSOR ALAN HAYES—AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF FAMILY STUDIES


33


Can you please expand on what topics you will address in your allotted plenary session at the Family Law Conference: The scientists are coming: what are the courts to do with social science research?


The working title of the paper I will be delivering is ‘Social Science and the Law: From Fallacies and Fads to Facts of the Matter.’


What I am going to explore is some of the ways in which social science is represented or utilised in family law matters, starting with a sense of some of the myths that are now so amusing in terms of historical beliefs. For example, the theory that women’s education was a direct cause of Down Syndrome, which was advanced in the 1860s; and also some of things I now read as an interested observer around repressed memories and parental alienation. When I, as a social scientist, delve into some of these issues, there is not a lot of solid evidence to underpin some of the things that currently are presented to the family law system.


MAR–MAY 2012


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64