Despite a debate that started in the 1960s and attempts by several governments to push such a plan forward, we’re still no closer to a comprehensive plan for improving Australia’s Asia literacy than we were in 1996.

The COAG-commissioned report that Rudd co-authored in 1992, for instance, was ambitious, but its proposals were straightforward enough:

‘(E)very Grade 3 child in the country should be required to study a second language. Sixty per cent of those children will be required to study a language of Eastern Asia: Japanese, Mandarin, Indonesian or Korean. … Our projections are that, by the time this program works through the school system, 25 per cent of the school population of this country will be taking one or other of those four languages for ten consecutive years. …deliberately modeled on the language teaching policies and programs of the Western Europeans, the Dutch and the Scandinavians …’

The idea was never to create generations of Asia-focused specialists or canny foreign policy operators. It was dual-discipline, intended to create reasonably proficient Asian language-speaking Australians who have at least some cultural understanding of Asia and can engage with the region in whichever way they choose to.

The issue was ignored, if not deliberately buried, during the years Howard was in office. Yet aside from a smattering of media releases at much the same time as he was spruiking his Asia Pacific Community idea, we’ve heard very little on this from the Rudd government.

Henry Makeham has recently written about Australian graduates falling behind in the Asian job market. Being able to understand and to deal with China, and our neighbours in the Asian region, ought not just be a matter of competitive advantage.

China literacy goes to the central question of Australia’s future international interests. It did then, and it certainly does now.

We ought not expect every Australian to speak Mandarin, but with the collapse of Chinalco’s deal with Rio Tinto, and the fatuousness of the Federal Opposition and some sections of the press over the past few months, there’s rarely been a better time for improving the state of Asia literacy in general, and China literacy in particular, in Australia.

In 1996, Rudd expressed frustration that nearly a generation of discussion and no fewer than sixteen reports written on the matter had been met with no real policy response.

Rudd should not wait for the thirty-second report to be written. If we truly wish Australia to be a leader, or simply a competent manager of its own affairs in Asia, this is an important step to take. Now is the time for him to put his foot forward on Asia literacy.