{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015717092337917484, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012770137524557957, 'mean_word_length': 5.290123456790123, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Colonially inspired child welfare legislation and the dilemmas of reform in Papua New Guinea

relic foisted upon the nation by a now departed administration. Drawn from existing Child Welfare legislation in Australia, it took very little account of customary law and traditional Melanesian community based social support systems. The unsuitability and consequent failure of such colonially inspired welfare legislation, delivery systems and methods in other developing nations has been well documented elsewhere Goldstein (1986: 14964). The Papua New Guinea Child Welfare Act follows this familiar pattern. Legislation and government social policy define young people in three different ways. The National Constitution defines minors as being under the age of eighteen years. Government-inspired policies for youth such as the National Youth Movement Programme define youth as being between twelve and twenty-five years of age. In law, the Child Welfare Act of 1961 defines a child as being under sixteen years of age.