Comments

I quite disagree with Martyn Namarong. Firstly, his view is formed based on his attendance of an "one off event" a Pacific Night in the highlands of PNG. No reference is made to the ethnicity of the peoples and their origins to substantiate this trend of thinking. Ethnically, culturally, Papua New Guineas can identify 100% no problems with the Solomons, ni-Vanuatu, Fijians. Even Samoans and Tongans customs, cultures, and languages can be identified 100% along the Papuan coastline, and onto the New Guinea Islands. Linguistically, a whole range of similarities in spoken languages of the Fijians, Samoans, and Tongans with the coastal communities of the Papuan coastline, and the New Guinea Islands. Pronunciation and meanings of spoken words establishes beyond any reasonable doubt the we are the same group of people that somehow got shifted around through early migration patterns. The linguistic composition of the highlands of PNG could be an exception to this commonality of languages that exists even now between the coastal regions of PNG and the rest of the Pacific islands - due to extreme isolation of the highlands regions based on geographical huddles that left the interior communities isolated from the coastal and the offshore islands migration and interaction patterns. I totally disagree with Martyn Namarong's analogy in attempting to link a one-off social gathering with something that is more profound in other established and documented opinion on this matter.

I visited East Timor in 2014 through the Catholic Church. The trip was made easy for me because I had the necessary connections to do home stays with priests, who were well established and supported by the international Church. While I was looked after, let me give you a few reasons why the average tourist would not fare well in Timor. -The driving along the main coastline loop that wraps around the country (the road that connects most of the country), is treacherous. At times, it is nothing but a dirt road. You cannot do it without a properly kitted out 4WD, and they are very expensive to hire in Dili. The cost of travel alone for a tourist is incredibly prohibitive. -You also need a driver who has the necessary skills to manage the roads (unless you yourself are capable), and you definitely need a guide with you because there is very little in way of street signs in Timor. -Public transport when travelling the coastal loop consists of small mini-buses. They are often overcrowded (people will even ride on top of them) and are not for the faint of heart. The capital is fine for public transport in so far as taxi's goes, but forget travelling anywhere else without the aforementioned 4WD unless you're game enough to try the mini-buses. -Tap water is not safe anywhere in the country, and that's if you can find a running tap. The infrastructure in a large portion of the country consists of cement block and straw hut homes with no, or very little, running electricity and water. -Infrastructure just in general, outside of the capital, is virtually non-existent. -Timor is the one place you would not want to get sick or injured. There is a serious lack of medical care available. -Hotels outside of the capital Dili, and the old capital Baucau, are very hard to come by. Tourists are limited by lack of suitable accommodation. Forget about Timor as a tourist destination in its current state. The basic issues of accommodation, access, lack of infrastructure and general safety from a medical standpoint need addressing. Until these basic necessities are addressed, the tourist industry will remain dead. Here's a little experiment you can do. Go online and try to organise a holiday to East Timor, visiting various locales around the country. Ask yourself these questions: Where will you stay? Where will you eat? How will you get around? Try to answer these simple questions, and you will soon see why Timor cannot accommodate tourists (outside of the capital).

Thought provoking article. There might be some element of truth in your post but I would rather think that PNG has a cultural blend that is part Melanesia (Pasifika) and part Asia. The attitude of our people can be categorized into two major groupings attesting to that. First type of attitude cluster is that of our coastal peoples from Western Province to Sandaun on the mainland coastline and the maritime NGI provinces. Our people from these areas are generally less aggressive and more accommodating in their approach. The second cluster is of those who are generally from the hinterlands of the country. People from these parts of the country demonstrate more aggression and tend to be generally protagonistic in their attitudes. So why take the trouble of identifying these attitude clusters? The attitude clusters form the basis of the complexity of the society we have presently. Our successes, ills and woes form an integral part of our challenges as a nation going forward. Of course every country has its own unique set of challenges but PNG's development charter is very much different from the rest of the Pasifika nations. Ours is one where cultural synergy is more a dream than reality and without a stronger uniting force the country could easily fall into fragmented parts. This scenario is not too dissimilar to the Chinese and other nations experience. Whilst we can still benefit from being a member of Pasifika there is also much much more that we can learn from Asia in terms of positioning ourselves well to unlock and then harness our potential as an economy. We must position ourselves well to make best use of our relationship with both sides of the ocean we live in.

Dear Ryan Thanks for your feedback and sharing. I really enjoyed your points and the articles shared, going to show that the narrative of presumed harms is a little off the mark and that interestingly, some of the national responses to the “brain drain” have resulted in net gains for the nations on both sides of the ledger. I look forward to following your analysis and the quantitative evidence about the impacts of our various labour mobility and skilled migration schemes on our Pacific neighbours.

Bula Abdul and thanks for further insights on the great strides made in Fiji for sustainable medical workforce. I too am heartened that the salary rises and the foundation of UPSM in Lautoka have led to increases in local medical practitioners and their retention to serve their compatriots. For clarification, I was not advocating for the punitive measures so much as listing them in what was a fairly broad discussion of what has been written in largely medical and public health literature about brain drain. The links below in Ryan Edwards response provide a great nuanced discussion from the economics literature and I’m grateful that they highlight the limitations of my own brief writing above. Fundamentally, the point of my article was to encourage reflection on Australia’s - and particular the Aid program’s - contribution to brain drain in the Pacific. I’ve fallen into using some popular tropes to make the point but thankfully responses like yours and Ryan's highlight that the agency of “recipient” nations is seeing benefits on both sides of the ledger, and in time Fiji will be a net medical expert exporter, which will benefit neighbours in the region and Fiji itself. Thanks for some great sharing!

Dear Dr Matthew Your paper does shine an important light in an area that affects healthcare in the Pacific island countries. However I believe that over the last decade strides have been made that might mute your discussion points, especially in regards to the Fiji Islands. Your paper quotes Pacific born Doctor numbers working in Australia over a 10 year period showed an increment by 34% in 2016 ( 455 -> 607). In the Fiji Islands, Doctors working in the country increased by 104% (400->815) over the last 5 years (Waqainabete, 2019). Moreover, Fiji as a country has developed, and in 2016 a massive increment in Healthcare professionals' salaries led to more retention of physicians. Additionally bonding and service contracts were strengthened for people sent for specialty training. These two changes are interlinked and seems controversial but is aimed to provide a more sustainable platform for the Fijian healthcare sector to train their own specialists in the future. However, solution one that you present seems quite conservative for aid giving nations at most. It is discriminatory. Why should the Fijian people or any others be penalised and not be hired if they were trained overseas? They may have already served their purpose. Soft evidence suggests that within the next few years, the medical field will be saturated in the small Fijian economy and therefore HCP's will most likely be groomed for export. Specific assessments and up to date data need to be collated in order to enhance meaningful change instead of generalising in the pacific. It may therefore be prudent to encourage developing island nations to better address and strengthen their retention tactics instead of using a totalitarian approach.

Thanks Duncan, I'm glad you got something out of it. As for the bit about my academic identity, I got my PhD from the ANU at the end of 2017, and do what I can.

Thanks. Nicely balanced and argued; I doubt the author is really an academic -his prose is too readable.

Very clear!

Thanks JK. Interesting comments & we'll certainly take on board as we develop our research. SD

I agree about cost of toursim in Timor Leste. I was there last week on holiday myself as a long time activist supporter. Another problem is that boats to Atauro have reduced and so ecotourism is suffering. We had hoped to spend 2-3 nights on Atauro but due to lack of boat transport I had to be content with a day trip on the Saturday ferry. There is huge potential in marine tourism but much more infrastructure and more supportive and strong regulatory environment needed to realise it so that Timor can actually benefit from it.

Slightly later in September 1990, a great promise was made in New York to the world's children: "On 29-30 September 1990 the largest gathering of world leaders in history assembled at the United Nations to attend the World Summit for Children. Led by 71 heads of State and Government and 88 other senior officials, mostly at the ministerial level, the World Summit adopted a Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children and a Plan of Action for implementing the Declaration in the 1990s." https://www.unicef.org/wsc/ This was part of the declaration issued that day: "The children of the world are innocent, vulnerable and dependent. They are also curious, active and full of hope. Their time should be one of joy and peace, of playing, learning and growing. Their future should be shaped in harmony and cooperation. Their lives should mature, as they broaden their perspectives and gain new experience." https://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/01/world/world-summit-for-children-excerpts-united-nations-declaration-children.html 30 years later this remains true - for the children of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever war and civil disturbance shape their futures instead. Australia did sign up for the priority of putting children first for resources. Just how effectively has that commitment of 30 years ago been realised as priorities in Australia's aid program ?