With my series on notable boat arrivals through history (see archives) the looney nature of fear and loathing of boat people is revealed. In our past, the arrival of the first fleet stands out, if you are able to take the point of view of the original custodians. The ruling elite then went to great trouble to establish these custodians were a figment of the collective imagination.
The trickle of boat arrivals in recent times has the loons out in force again. First, you get the fear mongers in the form of Liberal party stalwarts who are still hanging on to the hope that another fear campaign is all that stands between them and the Treasury benches.
And then you get the media cheer squad, who love a good lynching....
I can't be bothered going down that path again because these people are mainly 'bottom feeders' who do not deserve any attention, although the ABC Insiders provides a few of them with a regular forum to spruik their nasty wares. However, the Loon Pond has a worthwhile take on the phenomenon.
I suppose we should be grateful that the loons are not quite as dangerous as this mob in the US identified by Possum Pollytics, but then again......
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Both sides of Australian politics shoot the UN messenger on NT intervention
This blog labeled the NT intervention as racist from the outset. This was not to diminish the alarming facts of child abuse and social dysfunction but to question whether human rights were violated through the response. I won't repeat my earlier critique, but I'm sure it stands the test of time.
Kristen Gelineau, writing for Assoc Press, examines the current Govt's reaction to James Anaya, the U.N. special rapporteur on indigenous human rights, who said Thursday that his 12-day fact-finding tour of Australia revealed that Aborigines still suffer from "entrenched racism." He expressed particular concern about the intervention.
I refuse to believe that programs developed in close consultation with the key interest groups, which empower their capacity to help themselves, could not be implemented effectively without violating people's human rights. For Brough and Abott to climb on their high horses over UN interventions on human rights is despicable, as these politicians were members of a government that routinely trashed human rights in pursuance of their narrow reactionary agenda. They did little to address the human rights of women & children in remote communities for the lion's share of their period in office. What hypocrites! It took an alarm beacon to be set off in their faces for them to respond, and they did it with all the subtlety of an invading force, resplendent with military might! I can't get the abiding suspicion out of my mind that Howard sought to play low politics with the intervention - it must be something to do with 'children overboard' and the Pacific Solution that leaves me a little incredulous.
Woolly Days has a take on the defensive posture of Australian pollies and the media club.
And yet another take can be found at Public Opinion.
Surprise, surprise, Howard has again come out against a Charter or Bill of Human Rights. Howard et al don't like the idea that politician's laws are subject to universal notions of human rights. The preeminence of the parliament over the rights of its citizens seems to be at the heart of the argument. In other words, executive government should always be able to legislate at will, without consideration of whether or not laws passed undermine human rights. It is an interesting notion, somewhat reminiscent of past authoritarian regimes of the extreme left and right, who would not brook interference with their law making on the grounds of human rights.
Hmmm, what do you think about a group of politicians and their cheer squads that resist the notion that human rights should govern the laws that bind us all?
Kristen Gelineau, writing for Assoc Press, examines the current Govt's reaction to James Anaya, the U.N. special rapporteur on indigenous human rights, who said Thursday that his 12-day fact-finding tour of Australia revealed that Aborigines still suffer from "entrenched racism." He expressed particular concern about the intervention.
I refuse to believe that programs developed in close consultation with the key interest groups, which empower their capacity to help themselves, could not be implemented effectively without violating people's human rights. For Brough and Abott to climb on their high horses over UN interventions on human rights is despicable, as these politicians were members of a government that routinely trashed human rights in pursuance of their narrow reactionary agenda. They did little to address the human rights of women & children in remote communities for the lion's share of their period in office. What hypocrites! It took an alarm beacon to be set off in their faces for them to respond, and they did it with all the subtlety of an invading force, resplendent with military might! I can't get the abiding suspicion out of my mind that Howard sought to play low politics with the intervention - it must be something to do with 'children overboard' and the Pacific Solution that leaves me a little incredulous.
Woolly Days has a take on the defensive posture of Australian pollies and the media club.
And yet another take can be found at Public Opinion.
Surprise, surprise, Howard has again come out against a Charter or Bill of Human Rights. Howard et al don't like the idea that politician's laws are subject to universal notions of human rights. The preeminence of the parliament over the rights of its citizens seems to be at the heart of the argument. In other words, executive government should always be able to legislate at will, without consideration of whether or not laws passed undermine human rights. It is an interesting notion, somewhat reminiscent of past authoritarian regimes of the extreme left and right, who would not brook interference with their law making on the grounds of human rights.
Hmmm, what do you think about a group of politicians and their cheer squads that resist the notion that human rights should govern the laws that bind us all?
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Human rights in Australia - Oz scores poorly on OECD wage & social equity indicators - why?
I have'nt been posting lately due to a bout of ill health. However, there is no diminution of interest in human rights matters on my part.
I heard a news report this morning on findings that reveal Australia scores very poorly amongst developed economies on most measures of socio-economic equality, just ahead of Portugal, UK and USA. This does not surprise me at all. The academic being interviewed suggested the main cause is income inequality, with high income earners streaking away from the rest. In response to a question whether low indigenous incomes skewed the findings, the interviewee rebuffed this as the numbers are too low to affect the baseline outcome.
This got me thinking and I recalled an essay I read recently by Benjamin Friedman on a book by the son of John Kenneth Galbraith, entitled The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too. James Galbraith argues that true conservatism is bankrupt as a source of usable policy ideas, leaving conservative rhetoric, disconnected from any actual policy implications. Rather than lament this reality, Galbraith suggests 'liberal' policy makers (in Australia this term aligns with social democrats like Labor politicians) need to reject market fundamentalism.
Galbraith observes 'conservatives' no longer follow their own orthodoxy, including free trade, balanced federal budgets and keeping inflation in check by limiting the increase in the supply of money. He argues 'neo-conservatives' have turned government policy into an instrument of private financial gain, on a grand scale, for themselves and their allies in the business and political lobbying world; hence the "predator state" of the book's title.
The "cult of the free market" has seen western political culture
"divided into two groups. There are those who praise the free market because to do so gives cover to themselves and their friends in raiding the public trough. These people call themselves "conservatives", and one of the truly galling things for real conservatives is that they have both usurped the label and spoiled the reputation of the real thing."
By contrast, so called 'liberals' "praise the "free market" simply because they fear that, otherwise, they will be exposed as heretics accused of being socialists, perhaps even driven from public life."
Sound familiar? Galbraith argues 'liberals' (or perhaps social progressives is a better term) need to acknowledge and critique the failure of markets to deliver what's promised on their behalf as a basis for the formulation of a coherent construct to challenge free market orthodoxy.
A moneyed class has emerged under the guise of conservatism that
"set out to take over the state and run it - not for any ideological project but simply in the way that would bring to them, individually and as a group, the most money, the least disturbed power, and the greatest chance of rescue should something go wrong".
Thus we get a body politic based on "predation" - "the systematic abuse of public institutions for private profit or, equivalently, the systematic undermining of public protections for the benefit of private clients".
It is no accident that income inequality is widening in polities where pay for CEOs and other top executives has exploded, where a large proportion of tax cuts goes to families at the top of the income scale, where governments rush to bail out big firms, and to protect their creditors (and their executives' pensions), but declines to help ordinary citizens shafted by dodgy lending practices. Galbraith identifies many such inequities, most of which have echoes in the Australian landscape.
Financiers have replaced inventors and entrepreneurs as the captains of industry. Rich people who have largely made their money from exploiting other people's money were cast as 'heroes' until very recently. I always new we were in trouble as they pontificated this new reality as being in the 'national interest'. Beware of snake oil operators who claim patriotism as a key motivation for their predatory behaviour. Galbraith observes "the explosion of CEO pay, and other failures of corporate governance, are natural consequences of the lack of oversight by the financial powers. From there the step to looting is not large and the constitution of top corporate officers into a predatory class follows too. At each step of the way toward the emergence of the predator state, the influence and hegemony of the financial markets lay at the very root of the problem.
"None of these enterprises has an interest in diminishing the size of the state...For without the state and its economic interventions, they would not themselves exist...Their reason for being rather is to make money off the state- so long as they control it."
It all very worrying really, particularly as the 'conservative' forces in this country want to foist a leader on to us who has been honed in the world of investment banking, arguably the greatest looter class of all. There are a number of policy areas that produce rich pickings for the public sector looters. Tax is a core area of predation. When Turnbull launched his tax missive back in 2005 I broke into commentary, thus:
"A test that seems to be applied now is whether 'the policy is enabling public money to be transferred into private hands'. That certainly seems to be one of the driving motivations of this government, and the pace will quicken as the front bench and their mates start to sniff a defeat in the wind. It is time to nail down every public service or asset that isn't already finessed into the control of those who already have too much. Thus you get the Medicare safety net for the well-off; endless tax concessions that only smart lawyers and accountants know how to exploit; tertiary education for those that can afford it; grants to resource-rich schools; and so much more that it is tedious to recount. What we need desperately is a government that genuinely governs for all and not just the mortgage belt wannabees and the legions of tax avoiders in Wentworth."
As I always say, keep your eye on the money trail, if you want to know what is really happening in the world of corrupt power politics. Galbraith concludes his book with a story of a visit to his dad in hospital:
"...I visited my father in his room...for what would prove to be the last time. I told him a little bit of what I'd been working on, and he said, "You should write a short book on corporate predation..."Then he paused and added, with his usual modesty, If I could do it, I would put you in the shade."
Maybe, but I think the old bloke would have been proud of his boy's efforts.
I heard a news report this morning on findings that reveal Australia scores very poorly amongst developed economies on most measures of socio-economic equality, just ahead of Portugal, UK and USA. This does not surprise me at all. The academic being interviewed suggested the main cause is income inequality, with high income earners streaking away from the rest. In response to a question whether low indigenous incomes skewed the findings, the interviewee rebuffed this as the numbers are too low to affect the baseline outcome.
This got me thinking and I recalled an essay I read recently by Benjamin Friedman on a book by the son of John Kenneth Galbraith, entitled The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too. James Galbraith argues that true conservatism is bankrupt as a source of usable policy ideas, leaving conservative rhetoric, disconnected from any actual policy implications. Rather than lament this reality, Galbraith suggests 'liberal' policy makers (in Australia this term aligns with social democrats like Labor politicians) need to reject market fundamentalism.
Galbraith observes 'conservatives' no longer follow their own orthodoxy, including free trade, balanced federal budgets and keeping inflation in check by limiting the increase in the supply of money. He argues 'neo-conservatives' have turned government policy into an instrument of private financial gain, on a grand scale, for themselves and their allies in the business and political lobbying world; hence the "predator state" of the book's title.
The "cult of the free market" has seen western political culture
"divided into two groups. There are those who praise the free market because to do so gives cover to themselves and their friends in raiding the public trough. These people call themselves "conservatives", and one of the truly galling things for real conservatives is that they have both usurped the label and spoiled the reputation of the real thing."
By contrast, so called 'liberals' "praise the "free market" simply because they fear that, otherwise, they will be exposed as heretics accused of being socialists, perhaps even driven from public life."
Sound familiar? Galbraith argues 'liberals' (or perhaps social progressives is a better term) need to acknowledge and critique the failure of markets to deliver what's promised on their behalf as a basis for the formulation of a coherent construct to challenge free market orthodoxy.
A moneyed class has emerged under the guise of conservatism that
"set out to take over the state and run it - not for any ideological project but simply in the way that would bring to them, individually and as a group, the most money, the least disturbed power, and the greatest chance of rescue should something go wrong".
Thus we get a body politic based on "predation" - "the systematic abuse of public institutions for private profit or, equivalently, the systematic undermining of public protections for the benefit of private clients".
It is no accident that income inequality is widening in polities where pay for CEOs and other top executives has exploded, where a large proportion of tax cuts goes to families at the top of the income scale, where governments rush to bail out big firms, and to protect their creditors (and their executives' pensions), but declines to help ordinary citizens shafted by dodgy lending practices. Galbraith identifies many such inequities, most of which have echoes in the Australian landscape.
Financiers have replaced inventors and entrepreneurs as the captains of industry. Rich people who have largely made their money from exploiting other people's money were cast as 'heroes' until very recently. I always new we were in trouble as they pontificated this new reality as being in the 'national interest'. Beware of snake oil operators who claim patriotism as a key motivation for their predatory behaviour. Galbraith observes "the explosion of CEO pay, and other failures of corporate governance, are natural consequences of the lack of oversight by the financial powers. From there the step to looting is not large and the constitution of top corporate officers into a predatory class follows too. At each step of the way toward the emergence of the predator state, the influence and hegemony of the financial markets lay at the very root of the problem.
"None of these enterprises has an interest in diminishing the size of the state...For without the state and its economic interventions, they would not themselves exist...Their reason for being rather is to make money off the state- so long as they control it."
It all very worrying really, particularly as the 'conservative' forces in this country want to foist a leader on to us who has been honed in the world of investment banking, arguably the greatest looter class of all. There are a number of policy areas that produce rich pickings for the public sector looters. Tax is a core area of predation. When Turnbull launched his tax missive back in 2005 I broke into commentary, thus:
"A test that seems to be applied now is whether 'the policy is enabling public money to be transferred into private hands'. That certainly seems to be one of the driving motivations of this government, and the pace will quicken as the front bench and their mates start to sniff a defeat in the wind. It is time to nail down every public service or asset that isn't already finessed into the control of those who already have too much. Thus you get the Medicare safety net for the well-off; endless tax concessions that only smart lawyers and accountants know how to exploit; tertiary education for those that can afford it; grants to resource-rich schools; and so much more that it is tedious to recount. What we need desperately is a government that genuinely governs for all and not just the mortgage belt wannabees and the legions of tax avoiders in Wentworth."
As I always say, keep your eye on the money trail, if you want to know what is really happening in the world of corrupt power politics. Galbraith concludes his book with a story of a visit to his dad in hospital:
"...I visited my father in his room...for what would prove to be the last time. I told him a little bit of what I'd been working on, and he said, "You should write a short book on corporate predation..."Then he paused and added, with his usual modesty, If I could do it, I would put you in the shade."
Maybe, but I think the old bloke would have been proud of his boy's efforts.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Australians want asylum seekers treated fairly: Amnesty
ABC reports:
"A recent poll shows 69 per cent of Australians want asylum seekers to have the same legal rights regardless of how they arrive.
The Nielsen poll of more that 1,000 people was conducted for the human rights group Amnesty International.
Amnesty International's Dr Graham Thom says the poll is significant because detainees on Christmas Island do not have the same rights as those on the mainland.
Dr Thom says the poll sends a strong message to policymakers.
"While only a fraction of those who seek asylum in Australia each year come by boat, the majority of people think it's up to 60 per cent and a third of people think it's even 80 per cent, but even with that perception Australians believe they should be treated equally," Dr Thom said.
Dr Thom says in actual fact only 3.4 per cent of asylum seekers came by boat last year.
"Clearly there is a focus on boat arrivals that is just not justifiable and this has been picked up by the population, they are being misinformed and I think those responsible need to have a good look at why they're doing and hopefully stop doing it."
"A recent poll shows 69 per cent of Australians want asylum seekers to have the same legal rights regardless of how they arrive.
The Nielsen poll of more that 1,000 people was conducted for the human rights group Amnesty International.
Amnesty International's Dr Graham Thom says the poll is significant because detainees on Christmas Island do not have the same rights as those on the mainland.
Dr Thom says the poll sends a strong message to policymakers.
"While only a fraction of those who seek asylum in Australia each year come by boat, the majority of people think it's up to 60 per cent and a third of people think it's even 80 per cent, but even with that perception Australians believe they should be treated equally," Dr Thom said.
Dr Thom says in actual fact only 3.4 per cent of asylum seekers came by boat last year.
"Clearly there is a focus on boat arrivals that is just not justifiable and this has been picked up by the population, they are being misinformed and I think those responsible need to have a good look at why they're doing and hopefully stop doing it."
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Open letter to members of Australia's Parliament from Iranian human rights activist, Ardeshir Gholipour
Dear Member of the Parliament of Australia ,
You will have heard of the flagrant human rights abuses occurring on the streets of Iran. The government of coup d'etat sees in arbitrary detention, torture, beating and killing of defenseless people its sole means of survival. It is clear its baneful existence will not last. Among the detained are many journalists, intellectuals, union leaders, student activists, and elderly politicians, some with serious medical conditions. Also, hundreds of people have been arrested, some severely beaten. Students were thrown out of the windows of their dorms. They were forced to crawl in broken glass. Buttons were pressed into their eyeballs. Can such atrocities be borne in silence? Should we not make it clear that the civilized world will not tolerate such barbaric violation of the most basic rights of a human person? Should not the voice of Neda Agha Soltani, the beautiful student of philosophy whose chest was pierced with the bullets of evildoers, resound in every ear? Her 'Neda', her voice cries: Freedom!
I therefore write to you to ask for your support for the innocent people of Iran. The Iran expert, Jason Rezaian, who has just returned from Iran says what really weighs heavily on people’s hearts is that they think they are alone in their truly heroic struggle. He says that when he told a number of the protesters he met in the street that the whole world was standing with them against tyranny, they broke down crying.
The government of Ahmadinejad is illegitimate. Australia must expel its ambassador from Canberra. In our opinion, this is the most appropriate course of action. It signals to the Iranian people that Australia is with them in their legitimate demand that their choice and vote be respected. A democratic country cannot be indifferent to the flagrant violation of the most fundamental institution of democracy. The expulsion will also be welcomed by the future government of Iran. There are already clear signs that the erstwhile fellow travellers of Ahmadinejad are abandoning him. Thus, the expulsion makes good political and moral sense.
Ardeshir Gholipour
PO Box 573
Civic Square
ACT 2608
Ph: (0427) 339 761
Please address all email to:
ardeshirpprb@yahoo.com.au
You will have heard of the flagrant human rights abuses occurring on the streets of Iran. The government of coup d'etat sees in arbitrary detention, torture, beating and killing of defenseless people its sole means of survival. It is clear its baneful existence will not last. Among the detained are many journalists, intellectuals, union leaders, student activists, and elderly politicians, some with serious medical conditions. Also, hundreds of people have been arrested, some severely beaten. Students were thrown out of the windows of their dorms. They were forced to crawl in broken glass. Buttons were pressed into their eyeballs. Can such atrocities be borne in silence? Should we not make it clear that the civilized world will not tolerate such barbaric violation of the most basic rights of a human person? Should not the voice of Neda Agha Soltani, the beautiful student of philosophy whose chest was pierced with the bullets of evildoers, resound in every ear? Her 'Neda', her voice cries: Freedom!
I therefore write to you to ask for your support for the innocent people of Iran. The Iran expert, Jason Rezaian, who has just returned from Iran says what really weighs heavily on people’s hearts is that they think they are alone in their truly heroic struggle. He says that when he told a number of the protesters he met in the street that the whole world was standing with them against tyranny, they broke down crying.
The government of Ahmadinejad is illegitimate. Australia must expel its ambassador from Canberra. In our opinion, this is the most appropriate course of action. It signals to the Iranian people that Australia is with them in their legitimate demand that their choice and vote be respected. A democratic country cannot be indifferent to the flagrant violation of the most fundamental institution of democracy. The expulsion will also be welcomed by the future government of Iran. There are already clear signs that the erstwhile fellow travellers of Ahmadinejad are abandoning him. Thus, the expulsion makes good political and moral sense.
Ardeshir Gholipour
PO Box 573
Civic Square
ACT 2608
Ph: (0427) 339 761
Please address all email to:
ardeshirpprb@yahoo.com.au
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Human Rights in Australia - Asylum seeker procedures changed but mandatory detention retained
While 'utegate' spectacularly morphed into 'fakegate', leaving 'truffles' looking like a conniving spiv prepared to enter into any kind of 'faustian' deal with anyone who could bring him closer to the glittering prize, important changes to asylum seeker procedures went through the lower house today.
The Canberra Times reports, "The cracks in Coalition unity have spread, with Liberal backbenchers Petro Georgiou and Judi Moylan both arguing for a Government Bill that will abolish charges levied on asylum-seekers held in detention.
Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull and Coalition immigration spokeswoman Sharman Stone both argued against the Bill in Tuesday's joint party room meeting.
But Mr Georgiou and Ms Moylan, who have both criticised the party in the past for their approach to asylum-seekers, have supported the Bill, while fellow moderate Russell Broadbent could also support it."
The Government has been quietly getting on with reform to several key areas that impact on human rights, not least, of course, putting in the hard yards to keep Australia the best performing economy in the developed world. This has reduced the harm to vulnerable groups that would have ensued from a major economic meltdown.
They have been attacked relentlessly over deficit financing of human capital investment and essential infrastructure by one of the least impressive Oppositions. The Coalition has hurried to the status of champion bottom feeders and have lowered the tone of our political culture substantially. After Howard's lost decade I would have thought the Opposition needed to claw back some of the middle ground of the body politic, but it seems the radical reactionary agenda continues unabated.
It is interesting that the Coalition faces a similar problem to the GOP in the US - their appeal to a narrow demographic base through extreme right-wing agendas has left them largely irrelevant to the new paradigm emerging in the wake of the GFC.
The Coalition's response to asylum seekers is a case in point. The dishonest dissembling and nasty posturing of the Howard years does'nt wash any more, and as we discover the extent of lost reform and productivity opportunities in a time of a revenue bonanza, Australians with compassion and wit will look back in anger and regret at the human rights malaise we endured.
The Canberra Times reports, "The cracks in Coalition unity have spread, with Liberal backbenchers Petro Georgiou and Judi Moylan both arguing for a Government Bill that will abolish charges levied on asylum-seekers held in detention.
Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull and Coalition immigration spokeswoman Sharman Stone both argued against the Bill in Tuesday's joint party room meeting.
But Mr Georgiou and Ms Moylan, who have both criticised the party in the past for their approach to asylum-seekers, have supported the Bill, while fellow moderate Russell Broadbent could also support it."
The Government has been quietly getting on with reform to several key areas that impact on human rights, not least, of course, putting in the hard yards to keep Australia the best performing economy in the developed world. This has reduced the harm to vulnerable groups that would have ensued from a major economic meltdown.
They have been attacked relentlessly over deficit financing of human capital investment and essential infrastructure by one of the least impressive Oppositions. The Coalition has hurried to the status of champion bottom feeders and have lowered the tone of our political culture substantially. After Howard's lost decade I would have thought the Opposition needed to claw back some of the middle ground of the body politic, but it seems the radical reactionary agenda continues unabated.
It is interesting that the Coalition faces a similar problem to the GOP in the US - their appeal to a narrow demographic base through extreme right-wing agendas has left them largely irrelevant to the new paradigm emerging in the wake of the GFC.
The Coalition's response to asylum seekers is a case in point. The dishonest dissembling and nasty posturing of the Howard years does'nt wash any more, and as we discover the extent of lost reform and productivity opportunities in a time of a revenue bonanza, Australians with compassion and wit will look back in anger and regret at the human rights malaise we endured.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
OBITUARY - REG THOMSON (2 June 2009, Aged 89)
Reg was born in the Victorian goldfields in 1919. He left school at thirteen to work in a series of jobs in rural Victoria; joined the YMCA and enlisted in the Australian Army in 1941. He served in several theatres of war, including on the Bulldog Road in New Guinea and at Balikpapan in Borneo.
Following his demobilization Reg gained admission to the University of Adelaide under the Commonwealth Reconstruction Scheme. On completion of a Diploma in Social Science he joined the colonial administration in PNG as a junior education officer. In preparation for his colonial service in early 1949 he was admitted to the ASOPA in Sydney. His association with the school lasted for 24 years, both as a student and later as a sometime lecturer.
From the late 1950s until 1973, Reg was chief of the Division of Social Development and Director of Child Welfare within the Papua New Guinea government. This was a time of rapid social and political change, and his responsibilities were many and varied. Specialized offices in his division included child welfare, urban resettlement, training, youth work and women’s activities. His community development officers were based in all districts. Their duties included community development projects and community education including health promotion and political education. Referrals under child welfare and adoption legislation brought them into close contact with courts and legal aid agencies. They worked with government and non government agencies in many activities including case work and counseling, migration referrals, grants in aid, pensions and sports development and the licensing and inspection of child care centres.
Prior to Reg’s arrival there were few written guidelines in many of the areas mentioned above. Child welfare and adoption legislation were relatively new. Reg and his staff produced a wide range of publications which provided a “road map” through unfamiliar territory.
Through the activities and programs and in many other ways, Reg helped build up a number of agencies which became part of a modern social welfare system for PNG. His staff remembers him with respect and affection. And he has been honored by the PNG government for his outstanding contribution.
At the age of 89, Reg recently published his memoir, Looking for a Good Book. Early in his life Reg became an avid book collector. His book is a ‘tale of a gentle madness’, the story of a book collector thrown hither and thither by tumultuous events beyond his control.
Reg is survived by his son Mark, and daughter Julie.
Mark Thomson/Graeme Parry
Following his demobilization Reg gained admission to the University of Adelaide under the Commonwealth Reconstruction Scheme. On completion of a Diploma in Social Science he joined the colonial administration in PNG as a junior education officer. In preparation for his colonial service in early 1949 he was admitted to the ASOPA in Sydney. His association with the school lasted for 24 years, both as a student and later as a sometime lecturer.
From the late 1950s until 1973, Reg was chief of the Division of Social Development and Director of Child Welfare within the Papua New Guinea government. This was a time of rapid social and political change, and his responsibilities were many and varied. Specialized offices in his division included child welfare, urban resettlement, training, youth work and women’s activities. His community development officers were based in all districts. Their duties included community development projects and community education including health promotion and political education. Referrals under child welfare and adoption legislation brought them into close contact with courts and legal aid agencies. They worked with government and non government agencies in many activities including case work and counseling, migration referrals, grants in aid, pensions and sports development and the licensing and inspection of child care centres.
Prior to Reg’s arrival there were few written guidelines in many of the areas mentioned above. Child welfare and adoption legislation were relatively new. Reg and his staff produced a wide range of publications which provided a “road map” through unfamiliar territory.
Through the activities and programs and in many other ways, Reg helped build up a number of agencies which became part of a modern social welfare system for PNG. His staff remembers him with respect and affection. And he has been honored by the PNG government for his outstanding contribution.
At the age of 89, Reg recently published his memoir, Looking for a Good Book. Early in his life Reg became an avid book collector. His book is a ‘tale of a gentle madness’, the story of a book collector thrown hither and thither by tumultuous events beyond his control.
Reg is survived by his son Mark, and daughter Julie.
Mark Thomson/Graeme Parry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)